From: Samuel Ortiz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 14:42:40 +0300
> I actually asked for your advice about it some time ago: > http://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=117590341703544&w=2 > But by looking at the flow of emails on netdev sent to you (and that's only > netdev...), I can easily see how you could have missed it :-) > > Regarding this patch, I came up with this ioctl because I thought > implementing an IrDA netlink layer would be an overkill for just one single > command. > What I propose is that you revert this patch before we introduce a new ioctl > upstream while I start implementing a netlink IrDA layer. Would that be ok > with you, or can we let this new ioctl in and have it coexisting with a future > netlink layer ? The only concern is that once we add the ioctl, we can't get rid of it, it's there forever. Please consider this very carefully. You might discover that once you create the IRDA netlink layer, you will find it convenient to make it support all the IRDA stack configuration not just this one thing :-) - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
