On Fri, 2007-06-22 at 16:36 -0400, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
> Why do we explicitly remove atomic.h from our kernel header package?
No reason any more. Once upon a time, before the cleanup of the upstream
kernel's exports was complete, we needed to remove this unwanted crap.
These days, the kernel's st
On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 03:01:07PM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> I'd like to just do a brief poll here just to see how many are yay or
> nay for kmods. And I'm not talking about their current implementation
> or the other various ways that the idea can be accomplished, but rather
> on the idea of hav
On Fri, 2007-06-22 at 16:41 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Chuck Ebbert ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said:
> > Why do we explicitly remove atomic.h from our kernel header package?
>
> IIRC, the reasoning was because the operations weren't actually
> atomic when used from userspace; ergo, it was a bad ide
