* David Miller wrote:
> From: Steven Rostedt
> Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 08:51:46 -0500
>
> > I wish vger wouldn't do that. I wonder how much spam is really flagged
> > by this one characteristic alone. That is, spam that would have made it
> > otherwise, but because of the Cc list, it was
* David Miller da...@davemloft.net wrote:
From: Steven Rostedt rost...@goodmis.org
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 08:51:46 -0500
I wish vger wouldn't do that. I wonder how much spam is really flagged
by this one characteristic alone. That is, spam that would have made it
otherwise, but because
On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 01:44:06PM -0500, David Miller wrote:
> From: "Paul E. McKenney"
> Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 10:18:34 -0800
>
> > The situation that leads me to use a large CC list is when I am doing
> > something that affects all architectures. I could imagine keeping a
> > smallish CC
From: "Paul E. McKenney"
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 10:18:34 -0800
> The situation that leads me to use a large CC list is when I am doing
> something that affects all architectures. I could imagine keeping a
> smallish CC list, then forwarding or bouncing the email to the remaining
> maintainers
On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 01:05:24PM -0500, David Miller wrote:
> From: Steven Rostedt
> Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 08:51:46 -0500
>
> > I wish vger wouldn't do that. I wonder how much spam is really flagged
> > by this one characteristic alone. That is, spam that would have made it
> > otherwise, but
From: Steven Rostedt
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 08:51:46 -0500
> I wish vger wouldn't do that. I wonder how much spam is really flagged
> by this one characteristic alone. That is, spam that would have made it
> otherwise, but because of the Cc list, it was rejected.
10 to 20 spam posts per day are
On Thu, 5 Dec 2013 13:28:51 +0100
Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > Just me, or is the 3rd patch missing from lkml?
>
> It had a Cc: list from hell so vger probably rejected it as spam.
>
I wish vger wouldn't do that. I wonder how much spam is really flagged
by this one characteristic alone. That is,
* Henrik Austad wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 02:46:28PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > Hello!
>
> Hi Paul,
>
> > This series applies some long-needed updates to memory-barriers.txt:
> >
> > 1. Add ACCESS_ONCE() calls where needed to ensure their inclusion
> > in code
On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 02:46:28PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> Hello!
Hi Paul,
> This series applies some long-needed updates to memory-barriers.txt:
>
> 1.Add ACCESS_ONCE() calls where needed to ensure their inclusion
> in code copy-and-pasted from this file.
>
> 2.Add long
On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 02:46:28PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
Hello!
Hi Paul,
This series applies some long-needed updates to memory-barriers.txt:
1.Add ACCESS_ONCE() calls where needed to ensure their inclusion
in code copy-and-pasted from this file.
2.Add long atomic
* Henrik Austad hen...@austad.us wrote:
On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 02:46:28PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
Hello!
Hi Paul,
This series applies some long-needed updates to memory-barriers.txt:
1. Add ACCESS_ONCE() calls where needed to ensure their inclusion
in code
On Thu, 5 Dec 2013 13:28:51 +0100
Ingo Molnar mi...@kernel.org wrote:
Just me, or is the 3rd patch missing from lkml?
It had a Cc: list from hell so vger probably rejected it as spam.
I wish vger wouldn't do that. I wonder how much spam is really flagged
by this one characteristic alone.
From: Steven Rostedt rost...@goodmis.org
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 08:51:46 -0500
I wish vger wouldn't do that. I wonder how much spam is really flagged
by this one characteristic alone. That is, spam that would have made it
otherwise, but because of the Cc list, it was rejected.
10 to 20 spam
On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 01:05:24PM -0500, David Miller wrote:
From: Steven Rostedt rost...@goodmis.org
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 08:51:46 -0500
I wish vger wouldn't do that. I wonder how much spam is really flagged
by this one characteristic alone. That is, spam that would have made it
From: Paul E. McKenney paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 10:18:34 -0800
The situation that leads me to use a large CC list is when I am doing
something that affects all architectures. I could imagine keeping a
smallish CC list, then forwarding or bouncing the email to the
On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 01:44:06PM -0500, David Miller wrote:
From: Paul E. McKenney paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 10:18:34 -0800
The situation that leads me to use a large CC list is when I am doing
something that affects all architectures. I could imagine keeping a
On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 02:46:28PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> Hello!
>
> This series applies some long-needed updates to memory-barriers.txt:
>
> 1.Add ACCESS_ONCE() calls where needed to ensure their inclusion
> in code copy-and-pasted from this file.
>
> 2.Add long atomic
Hello!
This series applies some long-needed updates to memory-barriers.txt:
1. Add ACCESS_ONCE() calls where needed to ensure their inclusion
in code copy-and-pasted from this file.
2. Add long atomic examples alongside the existing atomics.
3. Prohibit architectures
Hello!
This series applies some long-needed updates to memory-barriers.txt:
1. Add ACCESS_ONCE() calls where needed to ensure their inclusion
in code copy-and-pasted from this file.
2. Add long atomic examples alongside the existing atomics.
3. Prohibit architectures
On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 02:46:28PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
Hello!
This series applies some long-needed updates to memory-barriers.txt:
1.Add ACCESS_ONCE() calls where needed to ensure their inclusion
in code copy-and-pasted from this file.
2.Add long atomic examples
20 matches
Mail list logo
