[PATCH stable] Separate multicast configuration for mesh and wlan interfaces.

[Andres Salomon]

On Tue, 13 May 2008 15:06:23 -0700
Andrew Morton <akpm at linux-foundation.org> wrote:

> On Tue, 13 May 2008 22:59:26 +0100
> David Woodhouse <dwmw2 at infradead.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, 2008-05-13 at 12:30 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > On Tue, 13 May 2008 13:20:19 -0400
> > > Andres Salomon <dilinger at queued.net> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > On Tue, 13 May 2008 15:45:39 +0100
> > > > David Woodhouse <dwmw2 at infradead.org> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > On Tue, 2008-05-13 at 15:38 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > And even without that, it doesn't seem to do the right
> > > > > > thing. Set IFF_PROMISC mode on one interface, then on the
> > > > > > other, then clear it on the first.... it should remain set
> > > > > > in hardware. And AFAICT it doesn't.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I'll see if I can make it work....
> > > > > 
> > > > > Hm, a single cup of tea mostly achieves that; sorry :)
> > > > > 
> > > > > I was missing the fact that priv->packetfilter[] is now an
> > > > > array. It got a bit clearer after I reformatted it to stop
> > > > > trying to fit in 80 columns. Sometimes the code just doesn't
> > > > > fit; it's painful to try to make it.
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Gosh, I sure wish you, Andrew, checkpatch.pl, and Ingo[0] were
> > > > all on the same page regarding that.. it would sure make my
> > > > life easier.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > David is off in his own little world on this and can be safely
> > > ignored.
> > > 
> > > Meanwhile the rest of us are forced to stare at crocks of shit
> > > like http://userweb.kernel.org/~akpm/x.jpg, wondering who hates
> > > us and why.
> > 
> > I think the large amount of whitespace in the screenshot at
> > http://david.woodhou.se/narrow.png shows quite effectively why I
> > think you're talking nonsense on this particular topic.
> 
> That's an 80-column display.
> 
> If that's the best your can do, you have nothing.


Can we come to a consensus for the sake of outside contributors?
Rather than telling the cozybit folks one thing, and having checkpatch.pl
and CodingStyle claim another (Dave, surely you wouldn't argue against
using checkpatch?), can we get our stories straight?  Please?


And FWIW, I like the 80 char limit _except_ when it comes to strings.
I've wasted too much time truncating strings, changing error messages
so that the printk doesn't exceed 80 chars, etc.  CodingStyle gives a
nice example of how unreadable that sort of thing is.