On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 04:26:00PM -0500, jamal wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-03-29 at 16:17, Neil Horman wrote:
>
> > No worries. What exactly is the point of contention on netdev? (I'm not
> > currently following that list). My patch seems to follow the common practice
> > for CONFIG_NET_CLS_ACT, in that all references to the action member of the
> > appropriate struct are themselves ifdef-ed.
>
> We are trying to kill appearance of any #ifdef CONFIG_NET_CLS_ACT in the
> classifiers. The patch you sent is correct except it will introduce
> an ifdef that we are trying to kill. The current workaround is to turn
> on CONFIG_NET_CLS_ACT in the kernel build.
>
> cheers,
> jamal
>
Gotcha. That seems like a pretty good idea. :) Thanks!
Neil
>
>
--
/***************************************************
*Neil Horman
*Software Engineer
*Red Hat, Inc.
*[email protected]
*gpg keyid: 1024D / 0x92A74FA1
*http://pgp.mit.edu
***************************************************/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
