On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 05:52:31PM +0100, Oliver Hartkopp wrote: > On 15.02.2011 10:34, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote: > > Unfortunately, the *correct* solution could rise some portability > > issues as some users might already use CAN_ERR_PROT_ACK and especially > > CAN_ERR_PROT_ACTIVE. What that be acceptible? What do you think? > > IMO the cleanup is important. The earlier we do this, the better. > > I assume the people going into these details are reading this mailing-list. > > And as the support from the CAN controller drivers is currently very > inconsistent, i won't think anyone is really relying on these bits in a > non-development environment. But this is just a guess ... An API that is inconsistent cannot be broken.
Kurt _______________________________________________ Socketcan-core mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/socketcan-core
