- KRYPTIVA PACKAGED MESSAGE -
PACKAGING TYPE: SIGNED
Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> The problem with your proposal, I guess, is that people will have to add a
supplementary parameter to the macro.
>
> It is not uncommon to have two slightly versions of macros/functions in the
kernel
* Karim Yaghmour ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> - KRYPTIVA PACKAGED MESSAGE -
> PACKAGING TYPE: SIGNED
>
> Hello Mathieu,
>
> Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > Yes, that was indeed the first way I implemented it, as a "disable"
> option. One of the main thing we have to figure out before I
- KRYPTIVA PACKAGED MESSAGE -
PACKAGING TYPE: SIGNED
Hello Mathieu,
Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> Yes, that was indeed the first way I implemented it, as a "disable" option. One of the
main thing we have to figure out before I modify this is if we want to have the generic version of
- KRYPTIVA PACKAGED MESSAGE -
PACKAGING TYPE: SIGNED
Hello Mathieu,
Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
Yes, that was indeed the first way I implemented it, as a disable option. One of the
main thing we have to figure out before I modify this is if we want to have the generic version of
markers
* Karim Yaghmour ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
- KRYPTIVA PACKAGED MESSAGE -
PACKAGING TYPE: SIGNED
Hello Mathieu,
Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
Yes, that was indeed the first way I implemented it, as a disable
option. One of the main thing we have to figure out before I modify this is
- KRYPTIVA PACKAGED MESSAGE -
PACKAGING TYPE: SIGNED
Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
The problem with your proposal, I guess, is that people will have to add a
supplementary parameter to the macro.
It is not uncommon to have two slightly versions of macros/functions in the
kernel
* Karim Yaghmour ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> - KRYPTIVA PACKAGED MESSAGE -
> PACKAGING TYPE: SIGNED
>
> Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > The main goal of this config option is for embedded systems which doesn't
> support live code modification. Maybe we can put that under "embedded
>
- KRYPTIVA PACKAGED MESSAGE -
PACKAGING TYPE: SIGNED
Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> The main goal of this config option is for embedded systems which doesn't support live
code modification. Maybe we can put that under "embedded sytems" menu ?
Not sure whether you had had other feedback on
- KRYPTIVA PACKAGED MESSAGE -
PACKAGING TYPE: SIGNED
Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
The main goal of this config option is for embedded systems which doesn't support live
code modification. Maybe we can put that under embedded sytems menu ?
Not sure whether you had had other feedback on
* Karim Yaghmour ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
- KRYPTIVA PACKAGED MESSAGE -
PACKAGING TYPE: SIGNED
Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
The main goal of this config option is for embedded systems which doesn't
support live code modification. Maybe we can put that under embedded
sytems menu ?
* Andrew Morton ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 15:03:27 -0500 Mathieu Desnoyers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > Linux Kernel Markers, non optimized architectures
> >
> > This patch also includes marker code for non optimized architectures.
>
> I think once we've done this
* Andrew Morton ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 15:03:27 -0500 Mathieu Desnoyers [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Linux Kernel Markers, non optimized architectures
This patch also includes marker code for non optimized architectures.
I think once we've done this we can nuke
On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 15:03:27 -0500 Mathieu Desnoyers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Linux Kernel Markers, non optimized architectures
>
> This patch also includes marker code for non optimized architectures.
I think once we've done this we can nuke
CONFIG_MARKERS_ENABLE_OPTIMIZATION? (Please,
On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 15:03:27 -0500 Mathieu Desnoyers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Linux Kernel Markers, non optimized architectures
This patch also includes marker code for non optimized architectures.
I think once we've done this we can nuke
CONFIG_MARKERS_ENABLE_OPTIMIZATION? (Please, let it
14 matches
Mail list logo