On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 06:23:31PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 12, 2006 at 01:41:13PM -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > Not that my opinion should hold much weight, having been absent from the
> > driver for some time, but yuck. Is there no better way to do this thatn
> > sprinkling poo all over it?
>
> The changes are mostly isolated into check_link(), the fact that half
> the function gets placed inside a conditional but diff sees it as a
> bunch of smaller changes makes the changes look a lot more invasive than
> they actually are. I guess that could be helped by splitting the PHY
> access code out of check_link() into check_phy_status() or something but
> I'm not sure how much that really helps.
It's not terribly offensive it just seems like a hack. :) I'm not sure I
really understand the reasoning, so I can't offer anythign better or more
general purpose.
-
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]
