On Sat, Jul 08, 2006 at 01:48:13AM +0900, YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / [EMAIL
PROTECTED](B wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (at Fri, 7 Jul 2006 11:54:25 +0400), Andrey
> Savochkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> says:
>
> > On Fri, Jul 07, 2006 at 01:34:34PM +0900, YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / [EMAIL
> > PROTECTED](B wrote:
> > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (at Mon, 3 Jul 2006 12:18:51 +0400),
> > > Andrey Savochkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> says:
> > >
> > > > @@ -3271,22 +3277,22 @@ int unregister_netdevice(struct net_devi
> > > >
> > > > /* And unlink it from device chain. */
> > > > for (dp = &dev_base; (d = *dp) != NULL; dp = &d->next) {
> > >
> > > Why not for_each_netdev?
> >
> > it's a different list
>
> Sorry, I still do not understand.
> In other words, why will we still have dev->next?
> After introducing net_device->dev_list, we do not need
> dev->next anymore, do we?
dev->next is removed in the last patch, to make possible the bisection
of patch list.
-
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
