> I tried back in July when I got the diff down to under a thousand lines.
> Linus wasn't really enthusiastic.
I wasn't necessarily thinking too much would go in very easy. But cleaner
and separate patches would at least probably stay easier to rebase.
> http://www.codemonkey.org.uk/junk/linus-e
On Thu, Dec 04, 2008 at 02:05:03PM -0800, Roland McGrath wrote:
> I've been thinking for a while execshield.patch could be split into two or
> three cleaner patches. Some of those might even be upstreamable as config
> options or something. It really isn't that big a patch at this point.
I tr
I've been thinking for a while execshield.patch could be split into two or
three cleaner patches. Some of those might even be upstreamable as config
options or something. It really isn't that big a patch at this point.
___
Fedora-kernel-list mailing li
On Thu, Dec 04, 2008 at 04:58:43PM -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
> interdiff choked, so I moved your diff over the current one
> and cvs diff'd, which coped a little better, but it still isn't
> too easy to see the delta. It's times like this I wish we
> did have a git tree.
>
> The only bits that jum
On Thu, Dec 04, 2008 at 04:38:38PM -0500, Kyle McMartin wrote:
> execshield rebased against 2.6.28, merged by git and then fixed up
> by hand.
>
> build tested against x86-64 and pae/non-pae i386.
>
> i'm uploading a scratch srpm but it will take a damned long time to
> upload so i'll incl
execshield rebased against 2.6.28, merged by git and then fixed up
by hand.
build tested against x86-64 and pae/non-pae i386.
i'm uploading a scratch srpm but it will take a damned long time to
upload so i'll include the build id in a reply.
diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/desc.h b/arch/x86/in
