Probably not redhat, but Alan Cox. I believe he has been very vocal in the past against our using syscall hooks.
-- Nathan ------------------------------------------------------------ Nathan Neulinger EMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] University of Missouri - Rolla Phone: (573) 341-4841 Computing Services Fax: (573) 341-4216 > -----Original Message----- > From: Derek Atkins [mailto:warlord@;MIT.EDU] > Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2002 8:37 AM > To: Chaskiel M Grundman > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [OpenAFS-devel] Updated redhat workaround patch > > > Chaskiel M Grundman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > --On Tuesday, October 22, 2002 11:17:03 +0200 Frank Bagehorn > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > What would be the sense in leaving out > kallsyms_symbol_to_address and > > > keeping kallsyms_address_to_symbol ? > > My personal suspicion is that it was intended to > specifically break my > > previous patch. hence the diatribe in the P.S. of my announcement. > > Why would Red Hat specifically care about OpenAFS? In particular, why > would they care about making it fail to work? > > -derek > > -- > Derek Atkins, SB '93 MIT EE, SM '95 MIT Media Laboratory > Member, MIT Student Information Processing Board (SIPB) > URL: http://web.mit.edu/warlord/ PP-ASEL-IA N1NWH > [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP key available > _______________________________________________ > OpenAFS-devel mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-devel > _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-devel
