On Sunday 22 November 2009 12:07:54 Mike Frysinger wrote: > after skimming the noise, i think you failed to address concerns with the > patch itself. i never say "futimes wont be added", i merely suggested you > encourage the UML guys to use POSIX interfaces instead of glibc-specific > ones. -mike
It's actually easier for me to get a patch into a linux kernel release than it is to get one into a uClibc release. (Mainly because I'm reasonably confident of living to _see_ the next linux kernel release.) Since doing so "scratches my itch", I'm no longer using the patch I submitted. Instead I plan to push a patch to User Mode Linux (as soon as I finish debugging it, anyway). Thanks for the suggestion, Rob -- Latency is more important than throughput. It's that simple. - Linus Torvalds _______________________________________________ uClibc mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/uclibc
