On Sun, 18 Nov 2007, Peter Teoh wrote: > On Nov 17, 2007 7:49 PM, Robert P. J. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > to show what goes into a composite module. but if you look at > > that cifs entry above, it uses "cifs-y" instead. my question was > > whether those two techniques are exactly equivalent. look at the > > difference between the rio entry and the cifs entry (both pulled > > verbatim out of the tree), and tell me if there's a reason they > > use different techniques to define the composite object. > > To requote the text from the documentation:
thank you. and the next time i need someone to mindlessly quote from the very documentation i reproduced in my original post, i'll have your email in my rolodex. > And from the above one sentence, my answer (just logical answer, > correct if I am wrong) to your question is YES. They are the same - > because of the word "and"??? and thanks for that, too -- i'd always wondered what the word "and" meant. now i know. > But documentation is correct or not does not matter - what matters > is it working in real life? Is the two the same in real life? I > got no experience yet. and therein lies the rub, since i was really hoping to hear from someone who *did* actually have an answer to my query. rday -- ======================================================================== Robert P. J. Day Linux Consulting, Training and Annoying Kernel Pedantry Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA http://crashcourse.ca ======================================================================== -- To unsubscribe from this list: send an email with "unsubscribe kernelnewbies" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://kernelnewbies.org/FAQ
