Re: problem in building 4.8.0: references to non-existent util CLANG

Randy Dunlap wrote: On 08/18/2018 05:48 PM, Linda Walsh wrote: Is CLANG required for building now? Looks like this patch should fix it: https://marc.info/?l=linux-kbuild=153447099313149=2 --- Thanks much!

Re: problem in building 4.8.0: references to non-existent util CLANG

Randy Dunlap wrote: On 08/18/2018 05:48 PM, Linda Walsh wrote: Is CLANG required for building now? Looks like this patch should fix it: https://marc.info/?l=linux-kbuild=153447099313149=2 --- Thanks much!

Re: RFC: Revert move default dialect from CIFS to to SMB3

Linus Torvalds wrote: On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 2:36 PM, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: Lo! To give a bit more background to this (the mail I reply to was the first I sent with git send-email and I missed some details): Maybe I'm over stretching my abilities/position as

Re: RFC: Revert move default dialect from CIFS to to SMB3

Linus Torvalds wrote: On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 2:36 PM, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: Lo! To give a bit more background to this (the mail I reply to was the first I sent with git send-email and I missed some details): Maybe I'm over stretching my abilities/position as regression tracker with this

Re: RFC: Revert move default dialect from CIFS to to SMB3"

Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: This reverts commit eef914a9eb5eb83e60eb498315a491cd1edc13a1 ( [SMB3] Improve security, move default dialect to SMB3 from old CIFS), as it confuses users: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=196599 It was a patch to improve security by switching to SMB3 by

Re: RFC: Revert move default dialect from CIFS to to SMB3"

Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: This reverts commit eef914a9eb5eb83e60eb498315a491cd1edc13a1 ( [SMB3] Improve security, move default dialect to SMB3 from old CIFS), as it confuses users: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=196599 It was a patch to improve security by switching to SMB3 by

Re: RFC: 2.6.release.patchlevel: Patch against 2.6.release[.0] ?

Chris Wright wrote: The patches on kernel.org in v2.6/ are already against the base (i.e. patch-2.6.11.6.bz2 is against 2.6.11). The patches in v2.6/incr/ are incremental between -stable releases (i.e. patch-2.6.11.5-6.bz2 is against 2.6.11.5). I see. I had looked at the "Changelog" page

Re: RFC: 2.6.release.patchlevel: Patch against 2.6.release[.0] ?

Chris Wright wrote: The patches on kernel.org in v2.6/ are already against the base (i.e. patch-2.6.11.6.bz2 is against 2.6.11). The patches in v2.6/incr/ are incremental between -stable releases (i.e. patch-2.6.11.5-6.bz2 is against 2.6.11.5). I see. I had looked at the Changelog page on

RFC: 2.6.release.patchlevel: Patch against 2.6.release[.0] ?

Given the frequency with which stabilization patches may be released, it may not be practical to expect users to catch each release announcement and download each patch. Especially if small patches are released for stability, as one might (hopefully) expect. Assuming that stability and "fix-it"

RFC: 2.6.release.patchlevel: Patch against 2.6.release[.0] ?

Given the frequency with which stabilization patches may be released, it may not be practical to expect users to catch each release announcement and download each patch. Especially if small patches are released for stability, as one might (hopefully) expect. Assuming that stability and fix-it

Re: [PATCH] typo fix in Documentation/eisa.txt

Rolf Eike Beer wrote: Typo fixes. Thanks to Randy Dunlap and Jean Delvare. Signed-off-by: Rolf Eike Beer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --- linux-2.6.11/Documentation/eisa.txt 2005-03-02 08:38:12.0 +0100 +++ linux-2.6.12-rc1/Documentation/eisa.txt 2005-03-27 21:58:04.0 +0200 @@ -171,9

Re: Do not misuse Coverity please (Was: sound/oss/cs46xx.c: fix a check after use)

Adrian Bunk wrote: On Sun, Mar 27, 2005 at 11:21:58PM +0200, Jean Delvare wrote: There are two cases: 1. NULL is impossible, the check is superfluous 2. this was an actual bug In the first case, my patch doesn't do any harm (a superfluous isn't a real bug). In the second case, it fixed a

Re: Do not misuse Coverity please (Was: sound/oss/cs46xx.c: fix a check after use)

Adrian Bunk wrote: On Sun, Mar 27, 2005 at 11:21:58PM +0200, Jean Delvare wrote: There are two cases: 1. NULL is impossible, the check is superfluous 2. this was an actual bug In the first case, my patch doesn't do any harm (a superfluous isn't a real bug). In the second case, it fixed a

Re: [PATCH] typo fix in Documentation/eisa.txt

Rolf Eike Beer wrote: Typo fixes. Thanks to Randy Dunlap and Jean Delvare. Signed-off-by: Rolf Eike Beer [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- linux-2.6.11/Documentation/eisa.txt 2005-03-02 08:38:12.0 +0100 +++ linux-2.6.12-rc1/Documentation/eisa.txt 2005-03-27 21:58:04.0 +0200 @@ -171,9

Re: Linux 2.6.11.1

Many, many thanks...it's a great idea and seems to go well with Linus's idea of making even releases "hyper-stable". This is exactly what I was looking for in (http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/268836) Sorry some of you feel like "suckers"...but you're _not_. You're heroes -- doing the

Re: Linux 2.6.11.1

Many, many thanks...it's a great idea and seems to go well with Linus's idea of making even releases hyper-stable. This is exactly what I was looking for in (http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/268836) Sorry some of you feel like suckers...but you're _not_. You're heroes -- doing the hard