4 messages, 2 authors, 2004-08-31 · open the first message on its own page
From: Pablo Neira <hidden>
Date: 2004-08-30 00:37:45
Hi Davem, David S. Miller wrote:
Is a 2.4.x version possible?
Attached the 2.4.x version. It just spawns one kernel thread called netlink, is it ok? regards, Pablo
From: David S. Miller <hidden>
Date: 2004-08-31 00:20:29
On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 02:37:45 +0200 Pablo Neira [off-list ref] wrote:
Attached the 2.4.x version. It just spawns one kernel thread called netlink, is it ok?
It's fine, I'm going to make 2 minor fixes: 1) Mark netlink_thread() function static. 2) Name the thread "knetlinkd" to be consistent with other kernel thread names. Thanks Pablo.
From: Pablo Neira <hidden>
Date: 2004-08-31 16:37:53
Hi Davem, David S. Miller wrote:
On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 02:37:45 +0200 Pablo Neira [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
Attached the 2.4.x version. It just spawns one kernel thread called netlink, is it ok?It's fine, I'm going to make 2 minor fixes: 1) Mark netlink_thread() function static. 2) Name the thread "knetlinkd" to be consistent with other kernel thread names.
Attached the version which correct these issues. regards, Pablo
From: David S. Miller <hidden>
Date: 2004-08-31 20:16:18
On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 18:37:53 +0200 Pablo Neira [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
It's fine, I'm going to make 2 minor fixes: 1) Mark netlink_thread() function static. 2) Name the thread "knetlinkd" to be consistent with other kernel thread names.Attached the version which correct these issues.
You misunderstood, I made these fixes for you in my tree :)