On Mon, 2006-07-31 at 09:06 +1000, Russell Stuart wrote: > It has gone quiet again. In my mind the one unresolved issue > is whether Patrick intended to remove RTAB with his patch. > If not, the ATM patch as it stands will have to go in. > > Patrick - it would be nice to hear from you.
It appears Patrick isn't going to reply. The situation as I see it is: - Patrick's last post said his STAB patch wasn't going to touch RTAB, so regardless of whether Patrick's STAB patch proceeds or not the ATM patch will be needed to make the current kernel work with ATM. - If I read Jesper's last post correctly, he said Patrick acknowledged to him in a private email that RTAB had to change to accommodate ATM, and in fact called it a bug in RTAB. Fixing this "bug" is what the kernel part of the current ATM patch does - and it does it in a backward compatible way. - Jamal, you said that this ATM patch should go in if Patrick didn't come up with a better solution. Jamal - unless there are other outstanding issues I have missed or someone has had second thoughts this means you should be OK with the patch going in. Can we get it into Dave M's tree now? - 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
