On Monday 16 February 2009 16:03:36 Wolfgang Denk wrote:
In message Mike Frysinger wrote:
Then I don't understand what you are talking about or what your patch is doing. To me it looks as if you were removing the bi_enetaddr[] resp. bi_enet?addr[] from the bd_info structure.
the discussion has moved on. the original patch removed the fields, but in the follow ups it was proposed simply renaming them. please review the context of each reply.
You just mentioned in one message a (IMHO silly) name bi_padding_was_enetaddr[] which did not look to me as if you intended to keep the funtionality.
padding/deprecated/whatever. it's the same thing: it becomes internal/legacy only and no new code touches it.
And even renaming is BAD as it breaks compatibility with the Linux kernel. It's bad enough that we have a binary data structure as a critical interface, but suing different variable names for the same fields would make it definitely worse.
that doesnt make any sense at all. the kernel isnt passed the structure as seen in the C language, it gets passed a binary blob. how the kernel chooses to interpret it is up to the kernel.
Please leave that structure untouched.
This is my final statement on this issue.
you'd think the maintainer would be more open to talking about issues instead of closing their mind and ignoring improvements -mike