Kirill Korotaev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Eric, really good job!
>
> Patches: 1-13, 15-24, 26-32, 34-44, 46-49, 52-55, 57 (all except below)
> Acked-By: Kirill Korotaev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> 14/59 - minor (extra space)
> 25/59 - minor note
> 33/59 - not sorted sysctl IDs
> 45/59 - typo
Eric, really good job!
Patches: 1-13, 15-24, 26-32, 34-44, 46-49, 52-55, 57 (all except below)
Acked-By: Kirill Korotaev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
14/59 - minor (extra space)
25/59 - minor note
33/59 - not sorted sysctl IDs
45/59 - typo
50/59 - copyright/file note
51/59 - copyright/file
On Tue, 2007-01-16 at 09:33 -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> There has not been much maintenance on sysctl in years, and as a result is
> there is a lot to do to allow future interesting work to happen, and being
> ambitious I'm trying to do it all at once :)
s390 parts look good. Kernels boots
On Tue, 2007-01-16 at 09:33 -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
There has not been much maintenance on sysctl in years, and as a result is
there is a lot to do to allow future interesting work to happen, and being
ambitious I'm trying to do it all at once :)
s390 parts look good. Kernels boots and
Eric, really good job!
Patches: 1-13, 15-24, 26-32, 34-44, 46-49, 52-55, 57 (all except below)
Acked-By: Kirill Korotaev [EMAIL PROTECTED]
14/59 - minor (extra space)
25/59 - minor note
33/59 - not sorted sysctl IDs
45/59 - typo
50/59 - copyright/file note
51/59 - copyright/file
Kirill Korotaev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Eric, really good job!
Patches: 1-13, 15-24, 26-32, 34-44, 46-49, 52-55, 57 (all except below)
Acked-By: Kirill Korotaev [EMAIL PROTECTED]
14/59 - minor (extra space)
25/59 - minor note
33/59 - not sorted sysctl IDs
45/59 - typo
50/59 -
On Wednesday 17 January 2007 03:33, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> There has not been much maintenance on sysctl in years, and as a result is
> there is a lot to do to allow future interesting work to happen, and being
> ambitious I'm trying to do it all at once :)
>
> The patches in this series fall
The FRV bits look okay. I can't test them until I get back from Australia in
Feb.
David
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ
"H. Peter Anvin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>>>
>>> Agreed. *Furthermore*, if the number isn't in it shouldn't
>>> exist anywhere else, either.
>>
>> That would be a good habit. Feel free to send the patches to ensure that
>> is so.
>>
>> I'm a practical fix it when
Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Agreed. *Furthermore*, if the number isn't in it shouldn't
exist anywhere else, either.
That would be a good habit. Feel free to send the patches to ensure that
is so.
I'm a practical fix it when it is in my way kind of guy ;)
That's fine. However, I am
"H. Peter Anvin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>>> With "architectural" I mean "guaranteed to be stable" (as opposed to
>>> "incidental"). Sorry for the confusion.
>>
>> Ok. Then largely we are in agreement. To implement that the rule is simple.
>> If it isn't
Eric W. Biederman wrote:
With "architectural" I mean "guaranteed to be stable" (as opposed to
"incidental"). Sorry for the confusion.
Ok. Then largely we are in agreement. To implement that the rule is simple.
If it isn't CTL_UNNUMBERED and the number is in Linus's tree, it is
our
"H. Peter Anvin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>>
>>> I think it would be fair to say that if they're not in
> they're
>>> not architectural, but that doesn't resolve the counterpositive (are there
>>> sysctls in which aren't architectural? From the looks of
> it, I
Eric W. Biederman wrote:
I think it would be fair to say that if they're not in they're
not architectural, but that doesn't resolve the counterpositive (are there
sysctls in which aren't architectural? From the looks of it, I
would say yes.) Non-architectural sysctl numbers should not be
CC list trimmed.
"H. Peter Anvin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>>
>> - Removal of sys_sysctl support where people had used conflicting sysctl
>> numbers. Trying to break glibc or other applications by changing the
>> ABI is not cool. 9 instances of this in the
Eric W. Biederman wrote:
- Removal of sys_sysctl support where people had used conflicting sysctl
numbers. Trying to break glibc or other applications by changing the
ABI is not cool. 9 instances of this in the kernel seems a little
extreme.
It would be highly advantageous if we could
There has not been much maintenance on sysctl in years, and as a result is
there is a lot to do to allow future interesting work to happen, and being
ambitious I'm trying to do it all at once :)
The patches in this series fall into several general categories.
- Removal of useless attempts to
CC list trimmed.
H. Peter Anvin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Eric W. Biederman wrote:
- Removal of sys_sysctl support where people had used conflicting sysctl
numbers. Trying to break glibc or other applications by changing the
ABI is not cool. 9 instances of this in the kernel seems a
Eric W. Biederman wrote:
I think it would be fair to say that if they're not in linux/sysctl.h they're
not architectural, but that doesn't resolve the counterpositive (are there
sysctls in linux/sysctl.h which aren't architectural? From the looks of it, I
would say yes.) Non-architectural
H. Peter Anvin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Eric W. Biederman wrote:
I think it would be fair to say that if they're not in linux/sysctl.h
they're
not architectural, but that doesn't resolve the counterpositive (are there
sysctls in linux/sysctl.h which aren't architectural? From the looks of
Eric W. Biederman wrote:
With architectural I mean guaranteed to be stable (as opposed to
incidental). Sorry for the confusion.
Ok. Then largely we are in agreement. To implement that the rule is simple.
If it isn't CTL_UNNUMBERED and the number is in Linus's tree, it is
our
H. Peter Anvin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Eric W. Biederman wrote:
With architectural I mean guaranteed to be stable (as opposed to
incidental). Sorry for the confusion.
Ok. Then largely we are in agreement. To implement that the rule is simple.
If it isn't CTL_UNNUMBERED and the number
Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Agreed. *Furthermore*, if the number isn't in linux/sysctl.h it shouldn't
exist anywhere else, either.
That would be a good habit. Feel free to send the patches to ensure that
is so.
I'm a practical fix it when it is in my way kind of guy ;)
That's fine.
H. Peter Anvin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Agreed. *Furthermore*, if the number isn't in linux/sysctl.h it shouldn't
exist anywhere else, either.
That would be a good habit. Feel free to send the patches to ensure that
is so.
I'm a practical fix it when it is in
There has not been much maintenance on sysctl in years, and as a result is
there is a lot to do to allow future interesting work to happen, and being
ambitious I'm trying to do it all at once :)
The patches in this series fall into several general categories.
- Removal of useless attempts to
Eric W. Biederman wrote:
- Removal of sys_sysctl support where people had used conflicting sysctl
numbers. Trying to break glibc or other applications by changing the
ABI is not cool. 9 instances of this in the kernel seems a little
extreme.
It would be highly advantageous if we could
The FRV bits look okay. I can't test them until I get back from Australia in
Feb.
David
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at
On Wednesday 17 January 2007 03:33, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
There has not been much maintenance on sysctl in years, and as a result is
there is a lot to do to allow future interesting work to happen, and being
ambitious I'm trying to do it all at once :)
The patches in this series fall into
28 matches
Mail list logo
