On Sun, Dec 02, 2007 at 10:59:46PM +0100, Patrick McHardy wrote:
> Adrian Bunk wrote:
>> On Sun, Dec 02, 2007 at 09:03:56PM +0100, Patrick McHardy wrote:
>...
>> your statement has an interesting implication:
>>
>> Stuff like e.g. the EXPORT_SYMBOL(sk_alloc)
On Sun, Dec 02, 2007 at 09:03:56PM +0100, Patrick McHardy wrote:
> Ben Greear wrote:
>> Stephen Hemminger wrote:
Naw, enterprise (or any other) distro vendors shouldn't have any issues
here,
since they can just patch their kernels around any issues.
But it looks like
On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 09:46:59PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>...
> It hurts me to even ponder what thinking makes it that
> CONFIG_EXPERIMENTAL isn't enough to keep a stable distro
> from shipping the code in their stable kernel, and locking us into
> trouble.
>...
There isn't any hard sem
On Sun, Oct 28, 2007 at 09:12:34AM -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> > Roughly that sounds like CONFIG_EXPERIMENTAL to me. But I would
> > be happy to hear if someone has a better idea.
>
> Rather than overload an existing config option, why not add one with the
> spe
On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 07:31:04PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > CONFIG_EXPERIMENTAL is a weak hint that some code might not (yet) be in
> > a perfect state, but it does not have any semantics regarding
> > usersp
On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 10:40:12PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > There isn't any hard semantics behind what is marked EXPERIMENTAL and
> > what not. In it's current state, we could even consider removing th
On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 03:59:29PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> "Kir Kolyshkin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Eric,
> >
> > Could you please hold off the horses a bit and wait till Pavel Emelyanov
> > returns? It means next Monday; he's currently at a conference whose
> > organisers
> >
