On Thu, 02 Sep 2010 15:55:44 +1000, Chris Samuel wrote:
Hiya,
On 02/09/10 15:44, Miao Xie wrote:
Ok, I will change it.
Did you just change the 2.1 to 2 in your patch, or did you find
a specifically version 2 licensed version of that code ?
If so, where was that ?
I just change the 2.1 to
* Miao Xie mi...@cn.fujitsu.com wrote:
- change the version of GPL from version 2.1 to version 2
How were you able to do this? If the code derives from glibc (as your
comments in the patches suggest), and if glibc is under the GPL v2.1,
then you probably cannot simply change the license to
On 02/09/10 16:50, Miao Xie wrote:
I just change the 2.1 to 2 in your patch, because the
orignal code is LGPL v2.1, LGPL v2.1 permits us to apply
the terms of the ordinary GNU General Public License instead
of it.
Ahhh excellent, I hadn't realised that was possible; well spotted!
cheers,
On 02/09/10 16:53, Ingo Molnar wrote:
and if glibc is under the GPL v2.1
It's LGPL v2.1 which can be converted to GPL v2 under section 3
of its license. See: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-2.1.html
cheers,
Chris
--
Chris Samuel : http://www.csamuel.org/ : Melbourne, VIC
--
To
On Thu, 2 Sep 2010 08:53:47 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Miao Xiemi...@cn.fujitsu.com wrote:
- change the version of GPL from version 2.1 to version 2
How were you able to do this? If the code derives from glibc (as your
comments in the patches suggest), and if glibc is under the GPL v2.1,
On Thu, 2010-09-02 at 13:44 +0800, Miao Xie wrote:
On Wed, 01 Sep 2010 17:25:36 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Wed, 2010-09-01 at 18:36 +0800, Miao Xie wrote:
+ * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it
+ * under the terms of the GNU General Public License
On Thu, 2010-09-02 at 09:55 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Thu, 2010-09-02 at 13:44 +0800, Miao Xie wrote:
On Wed, 01 Sep 2010 17:25:36 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Wed, 2010-09-01 at 18:36 +0800, Miao Xie wrote:
+ * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
On 09/02/2010 03:02 AM, David Rientjes wrote:
--- a/include/linux/slab.h
+++ b/include/linux/slab.h
@@ -334,6 +334,57 @@ static inline void *kzalloc_node(size_t size, gfp_t
flags, int node)
return kmalloc_node(size, flags | __GFP_ZERO, node);
}
+/**
+ * kmalloc_nofail -
On 2 September 2010 14:07, Chris Samuel ch...@csamuel.org wrote:
On 02/09/10 16:50, Miao Xie wrote:
I just change the 2.1 to 2 in your patch, because the
orignal code is LGPL v2.1, LGPL v2.1 permits us to apply
the terms of the ordinary GNU General Public License instead
of it.
Ahhh
On 02/09/10 18:16, chxand...@gmail.com wrote:
Umm, isn't the only one that can do that the copyright holder?
The copyright holder can use whatever license they wish; the LGPL
tells the licensee what rights *they* have, which includes distributing
the software under the (more strict) GPLv2.
On 2 September 2010 15:24, Chris Samuel ch...@csamuel.org wrote:
On 02/09/10 18:16, chxand...@gmail.com wrote:
Umm, isn't the only one that can do that the copyright holder?
The copyright holder can use whatever license they wish; the LGPL
tells the licensee what rights *they* have, which
Miao Xie mi...@cn.fujitsu.com writes:
Changes from V1 to V2:
- change the version of GPL from version 2.1 to version 2
the kernel's memcpy and memmove is very inefficient. But the glibc version is
quite fast, in some cases it is 10 times faster than the kernel version. So I
Can you
On Thu, 02 Sep 2010 10:55:58 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
Miao Xiemi...@cn.fujitsu.com writes:
Changes from V1 to V2:
- change the version of GPL from version 2.1 to version 2
the kernel's memcpy and memmove is very inefficient. But the glibc version is
quite fast, in some cases it is 10 times
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 02:58:44PM -0700, K. Richard Pixley wrote:
On 20100831 14:46, Mike Fedyk wrote:
There is little reason not to use duplicate metadata. Only small
files (less than 2kb) get stored in the tree, so there should be no
worries about images being duplicated without data
Hello devs,
I'm a slackware user that tried btrfs recently. My kernel version is
2.6.35.4, btrfs-progs is on the date of 20100902.
I have sdb7 in btrfs. I mounted with compress feature in the past, and
had put some files(~8GB) in it. However, I mount it without compress
feature today. When I
On Thu 02-09-10 09:59:13, Jiri Slaby wrote:
On 09/02/2010 03:02 AM, David Rientjes wrote:
--- a/include/linux/slab.h +++ b/include/linux/slab.h @@ -334,6 +334,57
@@ static inline void *kzalloc_node(size_t size, gfp_t flags, int node)
return kmalloc_node(size, flags | __GFP_ZERO, node); }
On 9/1/10 17:18 , Ted Ts'o wrote:
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 02:58:44PM -0700, K. Richard Pixley wrote:
On 20100831 14:46, Mike Fedyk wrote:
There is little reason not to use duplicate metadata. Only small
files (less than 2kb) get stored in the tree, so there should be no
worries about
On 9/2/10 09:36 , K. Richard Pixley wrote:
On 9/1/10 17:18 , Ted Ts'o wrote:
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 02:58:44PM -0700, K. Richard Pixley wrote:
On 20100831 14:46, Mike Fedyk wrote:
There is little reason not to use duplicate metadata. Only small
files (less than 2kb) get stored in the
On Thu, 2 Sep 2010 16:51:41 +0200
Jan Kara j...@suse.cz wrote:
On Thu 02-09-10 09:59:13, Jiri Slaby wrote:
On 09/02/2010 03:02 AM, David Rientjes wrote:
--- a/include/linux/slab.h +++ b/include/linux/slab.h @@ -334,6 +334,57
@@ static inline void *kzalloc_node(size_t size, gfp_t flags,
This was quite trivial - there's only 3 places I counted where we weren't
handling errors. None of the sites looked like they needed any additional
unrolling either.
Signed-off-by: Mark Fasheh mfas...@suse.com
---
fs/btrfs/xattr.c |6 ++
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
20 matches
Mail list logo
