> > We don't need it per port Jeff, you are being quite silly here. Right nowThats a simple question of what "=0" means - is it "disable=1" or "enable=1" or to quote Alice in Wonderland 'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less It really doesn't matter if it is on by default or off by default, whether 0 means off or on, what matters is that the single switch is quite sufficient initially to improve matters for everyone wanting to use the feature without harming anyone else. Sure you might want to make it per port later but someone who wants to optimise that peculiar case, has a problem and can test it can deal with that. Alan --
| Stephen Smalley | Re: [AppArmor 39/45] AppArmor: Profile loading and manipulation, pathname matching |
| Tarkan Erimer | Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 |
| Jan Engelhardt | intel iommu (Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23) |
| Greg Kroah-Hartman | [PATCH 005/196] Chinese: add translation of SubmittingDrivers |
git: | |
| David Fenyes | sigsetmask()? (LINUX) |
| Stephen Tweedie | Unmounting root (no kidding!) [was: Some Linux problems---solved] |
| Les Andrzejewski | X386/WD90C31/SUMSUNG SYNC MASTER 4 |
| Doug Evans | Re: Stabilizing Linux |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 27/37] dccp: Integration of dynamic feature activation - part 2 (server side) |
| Linus Torvalds | Re: [GIT]: Networking |
| Jarek Poplawski | [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
| Herbert Xu | Re: [PATCH] myr10ge: again fix lro_gen_skb() alignment |
