Re: RFC: please put back spare fields in struct ifnet (removed in svn 270870)

  Luigi,

On Tue, Sep 09, 2014 at 07:59:42PM +0200, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
L> My point is preserving support for out of tree modules,
L> and spares (or spare accessors, or the ABI you mention below;
L> something that gets you quickly a vendor specific pointer
L> from an opaque ifnet) were useful for that.
L> 
L> I think the removal of spares should have happened together
L> with the commit of the new mechanism. If it is ready now,
L> let's move with it and be done with this discussion.
L> 
L> If not, I would like to bring back the pspares
L> with a big note summarizing this discussion,
L> and remove then when the new mechanism is ready.
L> If i read correctly your comment below about
L> the "properly named placeholder" you seem to be ok with that ?

It would be absolutely okay if you commit right now a properly
named placeholder for your new subsystem, that you work on right
now. With the proper name no one will unintentionally hijack it.
Would this be a satisfiable solution for you?

The suggested ABI mechanism is still under discussion and
development.

-- 
Totus tuus, Glebius.