From: Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 06:57:21 -0500 > Still, is there some reason that NIP6/NIPQUAD stuff needs to be removed > at the same time as we add %pI4/%pI6? An period where the old NIP* > defines still live in the tree seems like a reasonable thing. Actually, from my perspective, killing the macros turns out to be a good thing. It caught a potential revert of the conversion we did in CIFS already, for example :) Unlike a compile failure, we don't have some automated thing scanning new patches looking for references to turds like these NIPQUAD macros which we want to remove. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
