On Friday 10 April 2009 01:49:33 Timo Teräs wrote: > Mike Frysinger wrote: > > On Friday 10 April 2009 01:07:52 Timo Teräs wrote: > >> Mike Frysinger wrote: > >>> On Thursday 09 April 2009 10:24:53 Cristi Magherusan wrote: > >>>> Is there anyone interested in porting the NPTL branch to x86/x86-64? > >>> > >>> always interested in accepting patches, but no one appears to be > >>> interested in doing the porting work atm > >> > >> Did you all miss the mail I sent yesterday? > >> > >> http://lists.uclibc.org/pipermail/uclibc/2009-April/042289.html > > > > i saw it, but i generally skim over things that make me go to an external > > location > > The patch is about 70 kB. I find it good practice to send large > (as in over 40-50kB) patches as URLs instead of as attachment/inline. > > But I can send it as attachment too if wanted.
meh, imo when dealing with open source projects (especially largish ones), 100kB is a reasonable limit. assuming your changes arent complete garbage of course (i glanced at the patch and it didnt look that way). > I just noticed that some changes there are probably not right > based on the recent MIPS patch discussion. > E.g. pthread_cleanup_push_defer related things. yes, changes outside of nptl specific code will have to be justified beyond "this allowed my port to work" -mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ uClibc mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/uclibc
