From: Jeff Garzik <jeff@garzik.org>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 16:50:41 -0400

quoted text
> The fact that Krzysztof's solution was _small_ and _clean_ and easily 
> maintainable was the reason I merged it [into my tree].
> 
> IMO sometimes "one size fits all" is not the best solution.

This is besides the point.  We are discussing two things here:

1) How to "correctly" fix the syncppp private area bug.

2) How to, long term, support PPP properly in the kernel for
   various users.

The fact that non-HDLC users of syncppp got left broken is why I
objected to the change you merged in Jeff.  It simply duplicated the
majority of syncppp into the HDLC PPP code, which is just rediculious.

That had nothing to do with whether we should, in the long term, use
the generic PPP infrastructure we have now.

I would have been more than happy if syncppp was retained and fixed
properly, instead of being abandoned and duplicated in one fell swoop.
We don't do things like that Jeff.
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/