On Wednesday 17 January 2007 22:01, David Boyes wrote:
Could you guys take this discussion back to LKML, please? I don't think
it's directly relevant to Linux on S/390 any longer, and few (if any)
people there really want this level of detail.
After following this list for some years, I agree
Post
-Original Message-
From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christian
Borntraeger
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 4:10 AM
To: LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: [PATCH 50/59] sysctl: Move utsname sysctls to their own file
On Wednesday 17 January 2007 22:01
On Thursday 18 January 2007 17:51, Post, Mark K wrote:
Christian,
I question the usefulness of having this mailing list in the MAINTAINERS
file at all. Perhaps we could create another list that people could
subscribe to that really are interested in this level of discussion. I know
I was
-Original Message-
From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christian
Borntraeger
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 2:17 PM
To: LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: [PATCH 50/59] sysctl: Move utsname sysctls to their own file
On Thursday 18 January 2007 17:51, Post
On Thu, Jan 18, 2007 at 02:34:49PM -0500, Post, Mark K wrote:
Christian,
I'm thinking that we want to have _some_ list in MAINTAINERS, just not this
one. The reason I say that is if the git390 system starts to become used by
more people, having the ability to subscribe to that list
On Jan 18, 2007, at 6:30 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Thu, Jan 18, 2007 at 02:34:49PM -0500, Post, Mark K wrote:
Christian,
I'm thinking that we want to have _some_ list in MAINTAINERS, just
not this one. The reason I say that is if the git390 system
starts to become used by more people,
, January 18, 2007 8:47 PM
To: LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: [PATCH 50/59] sysctl: Move utsname sysctls to their own
file
On Jan 18, 2007, at 6:30 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Thu, Jan 18, 2007 at 02:34:49PM -0500, Post, Mark K wrote:
Christian,
I'm thinking that we want to have _some_
...
-- db.
-Original Message-
From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Eric
W. Biederman
Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 3:01 PM
To: LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: [PATCH 50/59] sysctl: Move utsname sysctls to their own
file
Ditto. And I don't mean the utility.
On 1/17/07, David Boyes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Could you guys take this discussion back to LKML, please? I don't think
it's directly relevant to Linux on S/390 any longer, and few (if any)
people there really want this level of detail.
Also, in the
Absolutely f*g agreed.
-Original Message-
From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
David Boyes
Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 1:01 PM
To: LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: [PATCH 50/59] sysctl: Move utsname sysctls to their own
file
Could you guys take
Kirill Korotaev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Eric, though I personally don't care much:
1. I ask for not setting your authorship/copyright on the code which you just
copied
from other places. Just doesn't look polite IMHO.
I can't claim complete ownership of the code, there was plenty of feed
Eric, though I personally don't care much:
1. I ask for not setting your authorship/copyright on the code which you just
copied
from other places. Just doesn't look polite IMHO.
2. I would propose to not introduce utsname_sysctl.c.
both files are too small and minor that I can't see much
From: Eric W. Biederman [EMAIL PROTECTED] - unquoted
This is just a simple cleanup to keep kernel/sysctl.c
from getting to crowded with special cases, and by
keeping all of the utsname logic to together it makes
the code a little more readable.
Signed-off-by: Eric W. Biederman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
13 matches
Mail list logo
