On 26/06/2006 9:10 PM, Patrick McHardy wrote:
5. We still did have to modify the kernel for ATM. That was
because of its rather unusual characteristics. However,
it you look at the size of modifications made to the kernel
verses the size made to the user space tool, (37 lines
versus 303 lines,) the bulk of the work was does in user
space.
I'm sorry, but arguing that a limited special case solution is
better because it needs slightly less code is just not reasonable.
Without seeing your actual proposal it is difficult to
judge whether this is a reasonable trade-off or not.
Hopefully we will see your code soon. Do you have any
idea when?
_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list
LARTC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc
