[linux-cifs-client] Re: linux-next: cifs tree build failure

[David Miller]

From: Jeff Layton <jlayton at redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 06:57:21 -0500

> Still, is there some reason that NIP6/NIPQUAD stuff needs to be removed
> at the same time as we add %pI4/%pI6? An period where the old NIP*
> defines still live in the tree seems like a reasonable thing.

Actually, from my perspective, killing the macros turns out to
be a good thing.  It caught a potential revert of the conversion
we did in CIFS already, for example :)

Unlike a compile failure, we don't have some automated thing
scanning new patches looking for references to turds like these
NIPQUAD macros which we want to remove.