On 3 Feb 2011, at 17:32, Grant Likely wrote:
> The big issue that comes into play when implementing a new protocol in
> Linux is that once it is implemented, we need to support it until the
> end of time.
Indeed.
> That means it needs to be well thought out and there is
> a lot of resistance to
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 10:04 AM, Tony Ibbs wrote:
> Apologies again for getting Grant's email address wrong on my initial
> email.
>
> On Tue, 1 Feb 2011 20:40:08 -0700
> Grant Likely wrote:
>
>> There are already a large number of communication channels available
>> to Linux, with DBUS gatting t
Apologies again for getting Grant's email address wrong on my initial
email.
On Tue, 1 Feb 2011 20:40:08 -0700
Grant Likely wrote:
> There are already a large number of communication channels available
> to Linux, with DBUS gatting the most attention at the moment. What
> niche is KBUS filling
On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 20:20:42 +0100
Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> [Edited cc: list as my smtp server refused to send the original reply]
Apologies - I had copied down Grant Likely's email address wrong at ELCE.
> > Should I just submit the patch to this list?
>
> You will get more feedback on lkml...
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 06:01:58PM +, Tony Ibbs wrote:
> We talked briefly at ELCE 2010 in Cambridge, after the "keeping
> kernel maintainers happy" talk, and you offered that I could
> CC you when I got round to submitting our kernel module.
Hi Tony,
Yes, I remember talking to you. I'll tak
[Edited cc: list as my smtp server refused to send the original reply]
>
> Our tentative patch is at
> http://kbus.googlecode.com/files/0001-KBUS-messaging-subsystem.patch
>
> The diffstat for the patch is:
>
> Documentation/Kbus.txt | 1189 ++
> include/linux/kbus_defns.h | 666 ++
