Re: more git updates..

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (H. Peter Anvin) wrote on 11.04.05 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Followup to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > By author:Christopher Li <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel > > > > There is one problem though. How about the SHA1 hash collision? > > Even the chance is very

Re: more git updates..

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (H. Peter Anvin) wrote on 11.04.05 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Followup to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] By author:Christopher Li [EMAIL PROTECTED] In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel There is one problem though. How about the SHA1 hash collision? Even the chance is very remote, you

Re: Cosmetic JFFS patch.

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Torrey Hoffman) wrote on 30.06.01 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > So they compile it into the linux_logo.h image. It's now under the > GPL, of course... what does that do to the legal status of the logo? Copyright: you named it. Any other right: unchanged. (The GPL doesn't

Re: Cosmetic JFFS patch.

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chuck Wolber) wrote on 29.06.01 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Does sed tell you who programmed it on startup? > > > > Awk? > > > > Perl? > > > > Groff? > > > > Gcc? > > > > See a pattern here? > > Yeah, the output of these programms are usually parsed by other programs.

Re: Cosmetic JFFS patch.

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Torrey Hoffman) wrote on 30.06.01 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]: So they compile it into the linux_logo.h image. It's now under the GPL, of course... what does that do to the legal status of the logo? Copyright: you named it. Any other right: unchanged. (The GPL doesn't demand

Re: Cosmetic JFFS patch.

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chuck Wolber) wrote on 29.06.01 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Does sed tell you who programmed it on startup? Awk? Perl? Groff? Gcc? See a pattern here? Yeah, the output of these programms are usually parsed by other programs. s/usually/sometimes/ Most of

Re: Cosmetic JFFS patch.

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 28.06.01 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > Linux NET4.0 for Linux 2.4 > > > Based upon Swansea University Computer Society NET3.039 > > > > The later line is not something of interest to most people, and if it > > happens to be they can research it rather than being

Re: Cosmetic JFFS patch.

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Linus Torvalds) wrote on 28.06.01 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Thu, 28 Jun 2001, David Woodhouse wrote: > > > > I agree the messages can be ugly. But they don't do any harm either, and > > sometimes they're useful. > > I consider them harmful when I start getting annoying

Re: [PATCH] User chroot

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (H. Peter Anvin) wrote on 27.06.01 in <9hd7pl$86f$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > By author:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kai Henningsen) > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jorgen Cederlof) wrote on 27.06.01 in > > <20010627014534.B2654@ondska>: > > > > > I

Re: [PATCH] User chroot

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (H. Peter Anvin) wrote on 27.06.01 in 9hd7pl$86f$[EMAIL PROTECTED]: By author:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kai Henningsen) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jorgen Cederlof) wrote on 27.06.01 in 20010627014534.B2654@ondska: If we only allow user chroots for processes that have never

Re: Cosmetic JFFS patch.

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 28.06.01 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Linux NET4.0 for Linux 2.4 Based upon Swansea University Computer Society NET3.039 The later line is not something of interest to most people, and if it happens to be they can research it rather than being force-fed history

Re: Cosmetic JFFS patch.

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Linus Torvalds) wrote on 28.06.01 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Thu, 28 Jun 2001, David Woodhouse wrote: I agree the messages can be ugly. But they don't do any harm either, and sometimes they're useful. I consider them harmful when I start getting annoying patches that

Re: [PATCH] User chroot

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (H. Peter Anvin) wrote on 26.06.01 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Albert D. Cahalan wrote: > > > > > Normal users can use an environment provided for them. > > > > While trying to figure out why the "heyu" program would not > > work on a Red Hat box, I did just this. As root I set

Re: [PATCH] User chroot

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jorgen Cederlof) wrote on 27.06.01 in <20010627014534.B2654@ondska>: > If we only allow user chroots for processes that have never been > chrooted before, and if the suid/sgid bits won't have any effect under > the new root, it should be perfectly safe to allow any user to

Re: [PATCH] User chroot

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (H. Peter Anvin) wrote on 26.06.01 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Albert D. Cahalan wrote: Normal users can use an environment provided for them. While trying to figure out why the heyu program would not work on a Red Hat box, I did just this. As root I set up all the

Re: [PATCH] User chroot

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jorgen Cederlof) wrote on 27.06.01 in 20010627014534.B2654@ondska: If we only allow user chroots for processes that have never been chrooted before, and if the suid/sgid bits won't have any effect under the new root, it should be perfectly safe to allow any user to

Re: Microsoft and Xenix.

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob Landley) wrote on 24.06.01 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Now if somebody here could just point me to a decent reference on A/UX - > Apple's mid-80's version of Unix (for the early macintosh, I believe...) http://www.google.com/search?q=%22%2ba/ux%22 Usually a good idea.

Re: Microsoft and Xenix.

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob Landley) wrote on 23.06.01 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > on April 2, 1987. (models 50, 60, and 80.) The SAA/SNA push also extended > through the System/370 and AS400 stuff too. (I think 370's the mainframe > and AS400 is the minicomputer, but I'd have to look it up. One

Re: Microsoft and Xenix.

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob Landley) wrote on 23.06.01 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]: on April 2, 1987. (models 50, 60, and 80.) The SAA/SNA push also extended through the System/370 and AS400 stuff too. (I think 370's the mainframe and AS400 is the minicomputer, but I'd have to look it up. One of

Re: Microsoft and Xenix.

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob Landley) wrote on 24.06.01 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Now if somebody here could just point me to a decent reference on A/UX - Apple's mid-80's version of Unix (for the early macintosh, I believe...) http://www.google.com/search?q=%22%2ba/ux%22 Usually a good idea.

Re: The latest Microsoft FUD. This time from BillG, himself.

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob Landley) wrote on 22.06.01 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Thursday 21 June 2001 18:49, Alan Cox wrote: > > > > Except that Apple keeps the old code open. Probably because > > > they'll gain nothing from it, and at best, they can appeal to > > > the techies. > > > > A

Re: The latest Microsoft FUD. This time from BillG, himself.

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob Landley) wrote on 22.06.01 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Thursday 21 June 2001 18:49, Alan Cox wrote: Except that Apple keeps the old code open. Probably because they'll gain nothing from it, and at best, they can appeal to the techies. A company that seems to

Re: temperature standard - global config option?

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lauri Tischler) wrote on 21.06.01 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Richard J Moore wrote: > > > > > 59.42886726469 ±2°C is obviously ludicrous, even if that's > > > what my calculator gives me. I should instead write 59 ±2°C, since > > > > So, if I follow you argument then

Re: temperature standard - global config option?

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chris Boot) wrote on 08.06.01 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Only the truly stupid would assume accuracy from decimal places. > > Well then, tell all the teachers in this world that they're stupid, and tell > everyone who learnt from them as well. *All*? > I'm in high school

Re: temperature standard - global config option?

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chris Boot) wrote on 08.06.01 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Only the truly stupid would assume accuracy from decimal places. Well then, tell all the teachers in this world that they're stupid, and tell everyone who learnt from them as well. *All*? I'm in high school (gd. 11,

Re: temperature standard - global config option?

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lauri Tischler) wrote on 21.06.01 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Richard J Moore wrote: 59.42886726469 ±2°C is obviously ludicrous, even if that's what my calculator gives me. I should instead write 59 ±2°C, since So, if I follow you argument then shouldn't you be

Re: Alan Cox quote?

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Larry McVoy) wrote on 19.06.01 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Another one that I can't believe I forgot is from Rob Pike: > > "If you think you need threads then your processes are too fat" > > And one from me: > > ``Think of it this way: threads are like salt, not like

Re: Alan Cox quote?

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Larry McVoy) wrote on 19.06.01 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Another one that I can't believe I forgot is from Rob Pike: If you think you need threads then your processes are too fat And one from me: ``Think of it this way: threads are like salt, not like pasta. You

Re: Break 2.4 VM in five easy steps

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alexander Viro) wrote on 06.06.01 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Wed, 6 Jun 2001, Sean Hunter wrote: > > > This is completely bogus. I am not saying that I can't afford the swap. > > What I am saying is that it is completely broken to require this amount > > of swap given the

Re: Break 2.4 VM in five easy steps

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alexander Viro) wrote on 06.06.01 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Wed, 6 Jun 2001, Sean Hunter wrote: This is completely bogus. I am not saying that I can't afford the swap. What I am saying is that it is completely broken to require this amount of swap given the boundaries

Re: [RFD w/info-PATCH] device arguments from lookup, partion code

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Linus Torvalds) wrote on 20.05.01 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > If we had nice infrastructure to make ioctl's more palatable, we could > probably make do even with the current binary-number interfaces, simply > because people would use the infrastructure without ever even

Re: [RFD w/info-PATCH] device arguments from lookup, partion code

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Linus Torvalds) wrote on 20.05.01 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]: If we had nice infrastructure to make ioctl's more palatable, we could probably make do even with the current binary-number interfaces, simply because people would use the infrastructure without ever even _seeing_

Re: no ioctls for serial ports? [was Re: LANANA: To Pending Device Num

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pavel Machek) wrote on 19.05.01 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > I think that plan9 uses something different -- they have ttyS0 and > ttyS0ctl. This would leave us with problem "how do I get handle to > ttyS0ctl when I only have handle to ttyS0"? I've seen this question several

Re: no ioctls for serial ports? [was Re: LANANA: To Pending Device Num

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pavel Machek) wrote on 19.05.01 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I think that plan9 uses something different -- they have ttyS0 and ttyS0ctl. This would leave us with problem how do I get handle to ttyS0ctl when I only have handle to ttyS0? I've seen this question several times in

Re: LANANA: To Pending Device Number Registrants

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jonathan Lundell) wrote on 17.05.01 in <p05100301b72a335d4b61@[10.128.7.49]>: > At 11:23 PM +0200 2001-05-17, Kai Henningsen wrote: > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jonathan Lundell) wrote on 15.05.01 in > ><p05100316b7272cdfd50c@[207.213.214.37]>: > &g

Re: LANANA: To Pending Device Number Registrants

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Johannes Erdfelt) wrote on 17.05.01 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Thu, May 17, 2001, Kai Henningsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Johannes Erdfelt) wrote on 15.05.01 in > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > I

Re: LANANA: To Pending Device Number Registrants

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Johannes Erdfelt) wrote on 17.05.01 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Thu, May 17, 2001, Kai Henningsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Johannes Erdfelt) wrote on 15.05.01 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I had always made the assumption that sockets were created because

Re: LANANA: To Pending Device Number Registrants

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jonathan Lundell) wrote on 17.05.01 in p05100301b72a335d4b61@[10.128.7.49]: At 11:23 PM +0200 2001-05-17, Kai Henningsen wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jonathan Lundell) wrote on 15.05.01 in p05100316b7272cdfd50c@[207.213.214.37]: What about: 1 (network domain). I

Re: LANANA: To Pending Device Number Registrants

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (H. Peter Anvin) wrote on 16.05.01 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > At some point something talks to the device -- in this case, it's the > SCSI layer. Follow the interfaces in the kernel and it becomes obvious. rc = sys_iskind(int filehandle, const char *driverkind) rc = 0 or

Re: LANANA: To Pending Device Number Registrants

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Gooch) wrote on 16.05.01 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > H. Peter Anvin writes: > > Richard Gooch wrote: > > > > > > H. Peter Anvin writes: > > > > Richard Gooch wrote: > > > > > Argh! What I wrote in text is what I meant to say. The code didn't > > > > > match. No wonder

Re: LANANA: To Pending Device Number Registrants

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jonathan Lundell) wrote on 15.05.01 in : > What about: > > 1 (network domain). I have two network interfaces that I connect to > two different network segments, eth0 & eth1; they're ifconfig'd to > the appropriate IP and MAC addresses.

Re: LANANA: To Pending Device Number Registrants

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Linus Torvalds) wrote on 15.05.01 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > They might also be exactly the same channel, except with certain magic > bits set. The example peter gave was fine: tty devices could very usefully > be opened with something like > > fd =

Re: LANANA: To Pending Device Number Registrants

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Johannes Erdfelt) wrote on 15.05.01 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > I had always made the assumption that sockets were created because you > couldn't easily map IPv4 semantics onto filesystems. It's unreasonable > to have a file for every possible IP address/port you can

Re: LANANA: To Pending Device Number Registrants

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Johannes Erdfelt) wrote on 15.05.01 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I had always made the assumption that sockets were created because you couldn't easily map IPv4 semantics onto filesystems. It's unreasonable to have a file for every possible IP address/port you can communicate

Re: LANANA: To Pending Device Number Registrants

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Linus Torvalds) wrote on 15.05.01 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]: They might also be exactly the same channel, except with certain magic bits set. The example peter gave was fine: tty devices could very usefully be opened with something like fd =

Re: LANANA: To Pending Device Number Registrants

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jonathan Lundell) wrote on 15.05.01 in p05100316b7272cdfd50c@[207.213.214.37]: What about: 1 (network domain). I have two network interfaces that I connect to two different network segments, eth0 eth1; they're ifconfig'd to the appropriate IP and MAC addresses. I

Re: LANANA: To Pending Device Number Registrants

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (H. Peter Anvin) wrote on 16.05.01 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]: At some point something talks to the device -- in this case, it's the SCSI layer. Follow the interfaces in the kernel and it becomes obvious. rc = sys_iskind(int filehandle, const char *driverkind) rc = 0 or

Re: LANANA: To Pending Device Number Registrants

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Gooch) wrote on 16.05.01 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]: H. Peter Anvin writes: Richard Gooch wrote: H. Peter Anvin writes: Richard Gooch wrote: Argh! What I wrote in text is what I meant to say. The code didn't match. No wonder people seemed to be

Re: LANANA: To Pending Device Number Registrants

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (James Simmons) wrote on 15.05.01 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > I couldn't agree with you more. It gives me headaches at work. One note, > > > their is a except to the eth0 thing. USB to USB networking. It uses > > > usb0, etc. I personally which they use eth0. > > > > USB to

Re: LANANA: To Pending Device Number Registrants

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (H. Peter Anvin) wrote on 15.05.01 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Personally, I would also like to see network devices manifest in the > filesystem namespace like everything else. Yes. Can we have a meta-rule? *Every* by-name kernel interface should have a filesystem variant.

Re: LANANA: To Pending Device Number Registrants

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Daniel Phillips) wrote on 16.05.01 in <01051602593001.00406@starship>: > On Tuesday 15 May 2001 23:20, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > > Personally, I'd really like to see /dev/ttyS0 be the first detected > > serial port on a system, /dev/ttyS1 the second, etc. > > There are

Re: LANANA: To Pending Device Number Registrants

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Daniel Phillips) wrote on 16.05.01 in 01051602593001.00406@starship: On Tuesday 15 May 2001 23:20, Nicolas Pitre wrote: Personally, I'd really like to see /dev/ttyS0 be the first detected serial port on a system, /dev/ttyS1 the second, etc. There are well-defined

Re: LANANA: To Pending Device Number Registrants

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (James Simmons) wrote on 15.05.01 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I couldn't agree with you more. It gives me headaches at work. One note, their is a except to the eth0 thing. USB to USB networking. It uses usb0, etc. I personally which they use eth0. USB to USB networking

Re: LANANA: To Pending Device Number Registrants

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (H. Peter Anvin) wrote on 15.05.01 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Personally, I would also like to see network devices manifest in the filesystem namespace like everything else. Yes. Can we have a meta-rule? *Every* by-name kernel interface should have a filesystem variant. That

Re: Getting FS access events

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alexander Viro) wrote on 15.05.01 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > ... and Multics had all access to files through equivalent of mmap() > in 60s. "Segments" in ls(1) got that name for a good reason. Where's something called "segments" connected with ls(1)? I can't seem to find

Re: LANANA: To Pending Device Number Registrants

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alan Cox) wrote on 15.05.01 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > it to a device number at /sbin/lilo time. An idiotic practice on the > > > part of LILO, in my opinion, that ought to have been fixed a long time > > > ago. > > > > That's why you want mount-root-by-partition-label,

Re: LANANA: To Pending Device Number Registrants

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Linus Torvalds) wrote on 15.05.01 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > just incredibly stupid today. There's a script for doing exactly this for > SCSI. I forget what it's called, because I obviously think the thing is > stupid, but giving people the power to do even silly things is

Re: LANANA: To Pending Device Number Registrants

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alan Cox) wrote on 15.05.01 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]: it to a device number at /sbin/lilo time. An idiotic practice on the part of LILO, in my opinion, that ought to have been fixed a long time ago. That's why you want mount-root-by-partition-label, not by device

Re: LANANA: To Pending Device Number Registrants

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Linus Torvalds) wrote on 15.05.01 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]: just incredibly stupid today. There's a script for doing exactly this for SCSI. I forget what it's called, because I obviously think the thing is stupid, but giving people the power to do even silly things is what

Re: Getting FS access events

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alexander Viro) wrote on 15.05.01 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]: ... and Multics had all access to files through equivalent of mmap() in 60s. Segments in ls(1) got that name for a good reason. Where's something called segments connected with ls(1)? I can't seem to find the

Re: Not a typewriter

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 11.05.01 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > I think man is the best help system ever devised. (The GNU Info system, > however, is the spawn of Satan. :-) Both have good and bad parts. HTML and PDF are yet other such candidates. Something better is needed, but no two people

Re: page_launder() bug

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Linus Torvalds) wrote on 13.05.01 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > And that's why I'd rather have generic support for _any_ page mapping that > wants to drop pages early than have specific logic for swapping. > Historically, we've always had very good results from trying to avoid >

Re: IPv6: the same address can be added multiple times

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (David S. Miller) wrote on 13.05.01 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Pekka Savola writes: > > But it still looks dirty. Also, it's easier to add it many times by > > mistake; IPv4 addresses do not allow this. And as you have to remove > > them N times too, this may create even

Re: page_launder() bug

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Linus Torvalds) wrote on 13.05.01 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]: And that's why I'd rather have generic support for _any_ page mapping that wants to drop pages early than have specific logic for swapping. Historically, we've always had very good results from trying to avoid

Re: IPv6: the same address can be added multiple times

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (David S. Miller) wrote on 13.05.01 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Pekka Savola writes: But it still looks dirty. Also, it's easier to add it many times by mistake; IPv4 addresses do not allow this. And as you have to remove them N times too, this may create even more

Re: Not a typewriter

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 11.05.01 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I think man is the best help system ever devised. (The GNU Info system, however, is the spawn of Satan. :-) Both have good and bad parts. HTML and PDF are yet other such candidates. Something better is needed, but no two people seem

Re: Nasty Requirements for non-GPL Linux Kernel Modules?

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Galbraith) wrote on 13.05.01 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On 13 May 2001, Kai Henningsen wrote: > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alan Cox) wrote on 09.05.01 in > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > > you stand, it'll cost you arou

Re: Nasty Requirements for non-GPL Linux Kernel Modules?

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alan Cox) wrote on 09.05.01 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > you stand, it'll cost you around $15K and that, in my opinion, is fine. > > If it isn't worth $15K to protect your code then it is worth so little to > > you that there really is no good reason not to just GPL it from

Re: Nasty Requirements for non-GPL Linux Kernel Modules?

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alan Cox) wrote on 09.05.01 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]: you stand, it'll cost you around $15K and that, in my opinion, is fine. If it isn't worth $15K to protect your code then it is worth so little to you that there really is no good reason not to just GPL it from the

Re: Nasty Requirements for non-GPL Linux Kernel Modules?

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Galbraith) wrote on 13.05.01 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On 13 May 2001, Kai Henningsen wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alan Cox) wrote on 09.05.01 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]: you stand, it'll cost you around $15K and that, in my opinion, is fine. If it isn't worth $15K

Re: [PATCH] adding PCI bus information to SCSI layer

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jonathan Lundell) wrote on 11.05.01 in : > At 1:32 PM -0300 2001-05-11, Ralf Baechle wrote: > >On Thu, May 03, 2001 at 12:51:25AM -0700, Jonathan Lundell wrote: > >> Kai Henningsen wrote: > >> >What's a lot more important

Re: [PATCH] adding PCI bus information to SCSI layer

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jonathan Lundell) wrote on 11.05.01 in p0510030db7221c090810@[10.128.7.49]·2: At 1:32 PM -0300 2001-05-11, Ralf Baechle wrote: On Thu, May 03, 2001 at 12:51:25AM -0700, Jonathan Lundell wrote: Kai Henningsen wrote: What's a lot more important is that the mail

Re: page_launder() bug

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Horst von Brand) wrote on 07.05.01 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > "David S. Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > Jonathan Morton writes: > > > >-page_count(page) == (1 + !!page->buffers)); > > > > > > Two inversions in a row? > > > > It is the most

Re: page_launder() bug

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Horst von Brand) wrote on 07.05.01 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]: David S. Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Jonathan Morton writes: -page_count(page) == (1 + !!page-buffers)); Two inversions in a row? It is the most straightforward way to make

Re: [PATCH] for iso8859-13

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (H. Peter Anvin) wrote on 06.05.01 in <9d4ut6$9b9$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Followup to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > By author:Andrzej Krzysztofowicz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel > > > > Hi, > >The following patch removed unused and broken conversion

Re: [PATCH] for iso8859-13

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (H. Peter Anvin) wrote on 06.05.01 in 9d4ut6$9b9$[EMAIL PROTECTED]: Followup to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] By author:Andrzej Krzysztofowicz [EMAIL PROTECTED] In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel Hi, The following patch removed unused and broken conversion table from

Re: need good linux *athlon* (tbird) motherboard..

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jonadab the Unsightly One) wrote on 04.05.01 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dances With Crows) wrote: > > > Hmm. For "Athlon", the thl consonant combination occurs in such a way > > that the speaker can split the word into two syllables, "ath" and "lon", > >

Re: need good linux *athlon* (tbird) motherboard..

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jonadab the Unsightly One) wrote on 04.05.01 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dances With Crows) wrote: Hmm. For Athlon, the thl consonant combination occurs in such a way that the speaker can split the word into two syllables, ath and lon, Yes, you can do

Re: X15 alpha release: as fast as TUX but in user space (fwd)

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pavel Machek) wrote on 30.04.01 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > PS: Hmm, how do you do timewarp for just one userland appliation with > this installed? 1. What on earth for? 2. How do you do it today, and why wouldn't that work? MfG Kai - To unsubscribe from this list: send the

Re: [PATCH] adding PCI bus information to SCSI layer

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jonathan Lundell) wrote on 26.04.01 in : > At 10:31 PM -0600 2001-04-26, Richard Gooch wrote: > >BTW: please fix your mailer to do linewrap at 72 characters. Your > >lines are hundreds of characters long, and that's hard to read. > >

Re: X15 alpha release: as fast as TUX but in user space (fwd)

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pavel Machek) wrote on 30.04.01 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]: PS: Hmm, how do you do timewarp for just one userland appliation with this installed? 1. What on earth for? 2. How do you do it today, and why wouldn't that work? MfG Kai - To unsubscribe from this list: send the

Re: [PATCH] adding PCI bus information to SCSI layer

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jonathan Lundell) wrote on 26.04.01 in p05100303b70eadd613b0@[207.213.214.37]: At 10:31 PM -0600 2001-04-26, Richard Gooch wrote: BTW: please fix your mailer to do linewrap at 72 characters. Your lines are hundreds of characters long, and that's hard to read. Sorry for

Re: CML2 1.3.1, aka "I stick my neck out a mile..."

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alexander Viro) wrote on 30.04.01 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Mon, 30 Apr 2001, Eric S. Raymond wrote: > > > I don't think I've heard anyone invoke the 4-line rule since about > > 1992, though. I didn't start generating short random quotes into my sig > > until about 1996,

Re: CML2 1.3.1, aka I stick my neck out a mile...

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alexander Viro) wrote on 30.04.01 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Mon, 30 Apr 2001, Eric S. Raymond wrote: I don't think I've heard anyone invoke the 4-line rule since about 1992, though. I didn't start generating short random quotes into my sig until about 1996, well

Re: Should mount --bind not follow symlinks?

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alexander Viro) wrote on 12.03.01 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Mon, 12 Mar 2001, Anthony Heading wrote: > > > Hi, > > My automounted dirs have up till now been symlinks, where > > e.g. /opt/perl defaults to automounting /export/opt/perl/LATEST > > which is a symlink. > >

Re: Should mount --bind not follow symlinks?

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alexander Viro) wrote on 12.03.01 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Mon, 12 Mar 2001, Anthony Heading wrote: Hi, My automounted dirs have up till now been symlinks, where e.g. /opt/perl defaults to automounting /export/opt/perl/LATEST which is a symlink. This all

Re: [kbuild-devel] Re: CML1 cleanup patch

Warning: No kernel related stuff inside. [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rik van Riel) wrote on 26.03.01 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Mon, 26 Mar 2001, John Cowan wrote: > > In fact this has come up before: in Usenet software, which has to > > differentiate between an article and a sub-newsgroup. An

Re: [kbuild-devel] Re: CML1 cleanup patch

Warning: No kernel related stuff inside. [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rik van Riel) wrote on 26.03.01 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Mon, 26 Mar 2001, John Cowan wrote: In fact this has come up before: in Usenet software, which has to differentiate between an article and a sub-newsgroup. An article

Re: Multi-function PCI devices

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tim Waugh) wrote on 07.04.01 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Sat, Apr 07, 2001 at 01:23:27PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote: > > > You asked in your last message to show you code, here is a short > > example. Note that I would love to rip out the SUPERIO code in parport > > and make

Re: Multi-function PCI devices

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tim Waugh) wrote on 07.04.01 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Sat, Apr 07, 2001 at 01:23:27PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote: You asked in your last message to show you code, here is a short example. Note that I would love to rip out the SUPERIO code in parport and make it a

Re: bug database braindump from the kernel summit

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ben Ford) wrote on 01.04.01 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Why not have the /proc/config option but instead of being plain text, > make it binary with a userspace app that can interpret it? > > It could have a signature as to kernel version + patches and the rest > would be just

Re: bug database braindump from the kernel summit

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ben Ford) wrote on 01.04.01 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Why not have the /proc/config option but instead of being plain text, make it binary with a userspace app that can interpret it? It could have a signature as to kernel version + patches and the rest would be just bits.

Re: New directions for kernel development

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (john slee) wrote on 01.04.01 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Sun, Apr 01, 2001 at 01:22:48AM -0800, Richard Gooch wrote: > > Linus Torvalds writes: > > > > Ho, hum. No, he didn't. It's April Wankers^WFools again. > > we aussies are supposed to have a good sense of humour :P

Re: [RFC] sane access to per-fs metadata (was Re: [PATCH] Documentatio

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chip Salzenberg) wrote on 01.04.01 in : > Why not have a kernel thread and use standard RPC techniques like > sockets? Then you'd not have to invent anything unimportant like > Yet Another IPC Technique. You can, of course, transfer the exact same

Re: [RFC] sane access to per-fs metadata (was Re: [PATCH] Documentatio

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chip Salzenberg) wrote on 01.04.01 in E14jdkF-0007Ps-00@tytlal: Why not have a kernel thread and use standard RPC techniques like sockets? Then you'd not have to invent anything unimportant like Yet Another IPC Technique. You can, of course, transfer the exact same RPC

Re: New directions for kernel development

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (john slee) wrote on 01.04.01 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Sun, Apr 01, 2001 at 01:22:48AM -0800, Richard Gooch wrote: Linus Torvalds writes: Ho, hum. No, he didn't. It's April Wankers^WFools again. we aussies are supposed to have a good sense of humour :P Yeah, but

Re: Larger dev_t

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Martin Dalecki) wrote on 28.03.01 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Alan Cox wrote: > > > > > Exactly. It's just that for historical reasons, I think the major for > > > "disk" should be either the old IDE or SCSI one, which just can show > > > more devices. That way old installers

Re: Larger dev_t

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Martin Dalecki) wrote on 28.03.01 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Alan Cox wrote: Exactly. It's just that for historical reasons, I think the major for "disk" should be either the old IDE or SCSI one, which just can show more devices. That way old installers etc work

Re: Version 6.1.8 of the aic7xxx driver availalbe

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Linus Torvalds) wrote on 23.03.01 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Thu, 22 Mar 2001, Justin T. Gibbs wrote: > > > > aic7xxx_proc.c: > > Use an unsigned long for total number of commands > > sent to a device. %q and %lld don't seem to work > >

Re: Version 6.1.8 of the aic7xxx driver availalbe

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Linus Torvalds) wrote on 23.03.01 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Thu, 22 Mar 2001, Justin T. Gibbs wrote: aic7xxx_proc.c: Use an unsigned long for total number of commands sent to a device. %q and %lld don't seem to work under

  1   2   >