Alan, I'm not sure what you're saying here. Perhaps because I'm not intimately familiar with the typical kernel development process. (I only subscribe to LKML for as short a period as I possible can, and only when I absolutely have to! :)
If you could elaborate on what the difference is between those two scenarios, it would be helpful, because they sound like the same thing to me. Also, if I were to get involved with something like that, is there a bk client for Linux/390? (I'm willing to do something to help get these blasted patches integrated.) On the other hand, David Boyes is more than willing to give Marcelo an account on Sine Nomine's z/VM system if Marcelo would be able (and willing) to make use of it. That would probably be the preferred situation for everyone. Mark Post -----Original Message----- From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Alan Cox Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2004 7:29 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Kernel 2.4.24 qeth.o - unresolved symdol show_trace On Iau, 2004-01-29 at 06:41, Post, Mark K wrote: > Alan, > > You don't think the IBM developers in Boeblingen fit that category? If > anything, they do too much testing before they let the rest of us look at > the patches they create. Probably but you also want someone who will also grab your fixed bk tree and see if it works with the patches merged, which is different to "these patches work with XYZ, we know we've tested" Don't take the comment originally as anything against the IBM guys - its not intended that way at all Alan
