On 6/15/07, Tim Post <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, 2007-06-15 at 19:52 -0500, Scott Preece wrote:
>
> Yes, but in highlighting the possibility of evil intentions you
> distort the fact that usually there are no such evil intentions...
>
I don't think you can use "usually" and "fact"
On 6/15/07, Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Jun 15, 2007, "Scott Preece" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Whether it's a legal requirement or a business decision, the result is
> the same - neither forcing the manufacturer to make the device
> non-updatable nor forcing the
> On Friday 15 June 2007 18:59:14 Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > So it's true: the GPL just gives you rights, and without it you have no
> > rights (other than fair use ones etc), and blah blah. But the distinction
> > between "license" vs "contract" really isn't a very important one in any
> > case.
>
On 6/15/07, Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Jun 15, 2007, "Scott Preece" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 6/15/07, Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > * Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> That's correct, but with a catch: since the contract or license is
Jan Engelhardt wrote:
On Jun 15 2007 16:03, Christian Schmidt wrote:
Thanks for the clarification. I didn't use LVM on the device on purpose,
as root on LVM requires initrd (which I strongly dislike as
yet-another-point-of-failure). As LVM is on the large partition anyway
I'll just add the
On Friday 15 June 2007 21:29:22 Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Jun 2007, Rob Landley wrote:
> > Technically what they're holding back is _trademark_ rights, which are a
> > different area of IP law and not addressed by the GPL. (I know you know
> > this, but just for the record...)
>
> No,
On Sat, 16 Jun 2007, Carlo Wood wrote:
> I don't understand - any branch that I am on has many tags. I can use
> 'git reset --hard sometag' to change the source tree to that tag (which
> works if I look at the version in the Makefile and pick tags that are
> far apart enough).
That's not
On Friday 15 June 2007 23:51, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 16, 2007, Dmitry Torokhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Friday 15 June 2007 17:08, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >> >> If the Program does not specify a version number of this License,
> >> >> you may choose any version ever published
[I've added Herbert as former kernel team member in the debian(AFAIK),
sorry, if i'm wrong and you have no opinion on that, Herbert.]
On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 04:55:16AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 03:32:36AM +0200, Oleg Verych wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 01:42:02AM
For raid5 on an array with more than 3 drive, if you attempt to write
a single block, it will:
- read the current value of the block, and the parity block.
- "subtract" the old value of the block from the parity, and "add"
the new value.
- write out the new data and the new parity.
If the
On Sat, 2007-06-16 at 00:44 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 16, 2007, Tim Post <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 2007-06-15 at 23:29 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >> Tivo has two choices: either it gives
> >> users the content they want to watch, or it goes out of business. Is
> >>
On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 09:21:57PM -0400, James Morris wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Jun 2007, Greg KH wrote:
>
> > Oh great, then things like source code control systems would have no
> > problems with new files being created under them, or renaming whole
> > trees.
>
> It depends -- I think we may be
On Friday 15 June 2007 22:16:30 Bron Gondwana wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 04:26:34PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> > On Jun 15, 2007, Bron Gondwana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > What happens if you're debugging something you think is a bug in the
> > > Linux kernel and then you run bang
On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 08:33:38PM -0400, Daniel Barkalow wrote:
> HEAD doesn't mean what you think it means. It's the latest revision on the
> branch with the *. What you want is:
>
> $ git checkout master
>
> This will move the * to "master", which shouldn't have been affected by
> any of
On Friday 15 June 2007 23:44:00 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 16, 2007, Tim Post <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Fri, 2007-06-15 at 23:29 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >> Tivo has two choices: either it gives
> >> users the content they want to watch, or it goes out of business. Is
> >> that
On Jun 16, 2007, Dmitry Torokhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Friday 15 June 2007 17:08, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> >> If the Program does not specify a version number of this License,
>> >> you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software
>> >> Foundation.
> Distributing a copy
On Friday June 15, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> As I understand the way
> raid works, when you write a block to the array, it will have to read all
> the other blocks in the stripe and recalculate the parity and write it out.
Your understanding is
On Jun 16, 2007, Tim Post <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-06-15 at 23:29 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>> Tivo has two choices: either it gives
>> users the content they want to watch, or it goes out of business. Is
>> that legitimate enough of a reason to restrict the hardware?
> Can I
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007, Casey Schaufler wrote:
>
> --- James Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On my system, it takes about 1.2 seconds to label a fully checked out
> > kernel source tree with ~23,000 files in this manner
>
> That's an eternity for that many files to be improperly labeled.
>> "version 2 or higher"
> That phrase exists outside the license
That's true. But sec. 9 of the GPLv2 says:
If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you
may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation.
So, by making the COPYING contain the
On Friday 15 June 2007 22:04, Indan Zupancic wrote:
> On Fri, June 15, 2007 07:41, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > /*
> > + * Schedule switch for execution. We need to throttle requests,
> > + * otherwise keyboard may become unresponsive.
> > + */
> > +static void atkbd_schedule_event_work(struct
On Friday 15 June 2007 17:08, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 15, 2007, "Dmitry Torokhov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On 6/15/07, Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> On Jun 15, 2007, "Dmitry Torokhov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> > On 6/15/07, Bernd Paysan <[EMAIL
On Friday 15 June 2007 14:15:58 Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Jun 2007, Carlo Wood wrote:
> > The point is: can you, or can't you (legally) relicense the whole kernel
> > tree under the GPLv3 (or GPLv2+GPLv3)?
>
> No. My special rights do not actually give me those kinds of powers,
> exactly
On Jun 15, 2007, at 15:34:52, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
Perhaps live cd? In which case, the OP should, as recommended in
this thread already, deactivate choosing boot devices, if that's
possible.
(Unfortunately, newer BIOSes with 'integrated bootmenu' with F8 or
so, but I have not seen a way
On Fri, 2007-06-15 at 23:29 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> Tivo has two choices: either it gives
> users the content they want to watch, or it goes out of business. Is
> that legitimate enough of a reason to restrict the hardware?
Can I submit that they could just rent the use of their machines?
--- James Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On my system, it takes about 1.2 seconds to label a fully checked out
> kernel source tree with ~23,000 files in this manner
That's an eternity for that many files to be improperly labeled.
If, and the "if" didn't originate with me, your policy is
On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 03:32:36AM +0200, Oleg Verych wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 01:42:02AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 04:20:57PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Oleg Verych wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I'm seeing this long (198)
On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 06:06:58PM -0400, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
> On 06/15/2007 05:17 PM, Gregory Haskins wrote:
> > The spinlock irq flags should be a unsigned long to properly support 64 bit
>
> Ouch. Can't we automate checking for that?
Hopefully I'll do it before next -rc1.
---
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007, Seth Arnold wrote:
> The time for restorecon is probably best imagined as a kind of 'du' that
> also updates extended attributes as it does its work. It'd be very
> difficult to improve on this.
restorecon can most definitely be improved.
- James
--
James Morris
<[EMAIL
On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 04:26:34PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 15, 2007, Bron Gondwana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > What happens if you're debugging something you think is a bug in the
> > Linux kernel and then you run bang into some interactions that make you
> > think the bug
On Fri, 2007-06-15 at 19:52 -0500, Scott Preece wrote:
>
> Yes, but in highlighting the possibility of evil intentions you
> distort the fact that usually there are no such evil intentions...
>
I don't think you can use "usually" and "fact" together like that. Why
is it so bad to account for
By the way, the unfortunate answer to the question of what the default
position is when contributions to a collective work are received without
explicit license, at least in the United States, is:
"In the absence of an express transfer of the copyright or of any rights
under it, the owner of
Neil Brown wrote:
> On Thursday June 14, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > why does it need to do a rebuild when makeing a new array? couldn't it
> > just zero all the drives instead? (or better still just record most of the
> > space as 'unused' and initialize it as it starts useing it?)
>
> Yes,
On Fri, June 15, 2007 07:41, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> Does the patch below help?
Didn't try it yet, but will tomorrow.
> Input: atkbd - throttle LED switching
>
> On some boxes keyboard controllers are too slow to withstand
> continuous flow of requests to turn keyboard LEDs on and off
> and
On Friday 15 June 2007 18:59:14 Linus Torvalds wrote:
> So it's true: the GPL just gives you rights, and without it you have no
> rights (other than fair use ones etc), and blah blah. But the distinction
> between "license" vs "contract" really isn't a very important one in any
> case.
Er,
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007, Seth Arnold wrote:
> > How does inotify not work here? You are notified that the tree is
> > moved, your daemon goes through and relabels things as needed. In the
> > meantime, before the re-label happens, you might have the wrong label on
> > things, but "somehow" SELinux
On Jun 15, 2007, Rob Landley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Friday 15 June 2007 15:28:29 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> On Jun 15, 2007, Rob Landley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > On Thursday 14 June 2007 22:25:57 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> >> Is the signature not derived from the bits in the GPLed
On Jun 15, 2007, "Scott Preece" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 6/15/07, Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > * Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> That's correct, but with a catch: since the contract or license is
>> chosen by the licensor, in case of ambiguity in the
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> on the contrary, useing 'mv' is by far the cleanest way to do this.
>
> mv htdocs htdocs.old;mv htdocs.new htdocs
>
> this makes two atomic changes to the filesystem, but can generate thousands to
> millions of permission changes as a result.
On Jun 15, 2007, "Scott Preece" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 6/15/07, Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > The FSF's approval of this distinction (ROM versus replaceable) places
>> > the FSF's particular principles over users interests, for no
>> > particular reason
>> Over *users*
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007, Rob Landley wrote:
>
> Technically what they're holding back is _trademark_ rights, which are a
> different area of IP law and not addressed by the GPL. (I know you know
> this, but just for the record...)
No, technically Red Hat really *does* have copyrights of their
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007, Greg KH wrote:
> Oh great, then things like source code control systems would have no
> problems with new files being created under them, or renaming whole
> trees.
It depends -- I think we may be talking about different things.
If you're using inotify to watch for new
On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 01:42:02AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 04:20:57PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Oleg Verych wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm seeing this long (198) thread and just have no idea how it has
> > > ended (wiki? hand-mailing?).
>
On Friday 15 June 2007 15:28:29 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 15, 2007, Rob Landley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thursday 14 June 2007 22:25:57 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >> Is the signature not derived from the bits in the GPLed component, as
> >> much as it is derived from the key?
> >
> >
On Friday 15 June 2007 20:22:50 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 15, 2007, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > * Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> On Jun 15, 2007, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > it irreversibly cuts off certain people from being to distribute
>
On Friday 15 June 2007 13:03:53 Linus Torvalds wrote:
> But does Red Hat actually give you *all* the rights they
> hold on the DVD? No, they definitely do not. They hold a
> compilation copyright on RHEL, and they very much do *not*
> give you the
On 6/15/07, Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Jun 15, 2007, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
How do these stop a user's exercise of the four freedoms of a piece of
software licensed under the GPL?
---
I know you don't see it that way, but I still find it bizarre that
"the
On Friday 15 June 2007 19:39:57 Michael Gerdau wrote:
> > > > What matters is *my* intent in *choosing* the GPLv2, not *his*
> > > > intent in writing it.
> > >
> > > I beg to differ. By adopting _his_ license you adopted his view. [...]
> >
> > ianal, but fortunately that's not what the law is.
On 6/15/07, Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
That's correct, but with a catch: since the contract or license is
chosen by the licensor, in case of ambiguity in the terms, many courts
will interpret it in a way that privileges the
On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 02:33:41AM +0300, S.Çağlar Onur wrote:
> One of our colleagues found following problem with his old laptop while
> testing Linus's latest git with external alsa-driver (v1.0.14). And we can
> also reproduce same problem with 2.6.18.8 so it seems not a new regression
On 6/15/07, Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Jun 15, 2007, "Scott Preece" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> That's not true. They can just as well throw the key away and refrain
>> from modifying the installed software behind the users' back.
> This characterization misses something
Crispin Cowan wrote:
> In a smaller scale example, I want to share some files with a friend. I
> can't be bothered to set up a proper access control system, so I just mv
> the files to ~crispin/public_html/lookitme and in IRC say "get it now,
> going away in 10 minutes" and then move it out again.
On Sat, 16 Jun 2007, Carlo Wood wrote:
> Therefore I have the following questions:
>
> 1) What git command will ASSURE that I get the LATEST
>kernel tree checked out?
>
> I tried this:
>
> hikaru:/usr/src/kernel/git/linux-2.6>git branch -l
> * bisect
> master
> origin
>
On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 05:01:25PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Jun 2007, Greg KH wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 04:30:44PM -0700, Crispin Cowan wrote:
> >> Greg KH wrote:
> >>> On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 10:06:23PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Only case where attacker
On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 05:18:10PM -0700, Seth Arnold wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 04:49:25PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > > We have built a label-based AA prototype. It fails because there is no
> > > reasonable way to address the tree renaming problem.
> >
> > How does inotify not work here?
On Jun 15, 2007, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Jun 15, 2007, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > it irreversibly cuts off certain people from being to distribute
>> > GPLv3-ed software alongside with certain types of
Hi!
> >>Under the restorecon proposal, the web site would be horribly broken
> >>until restorecon finishes, as various random pages are or are not
> >>accessible to Apache.
> >
> >Usually you don't do that by doing a 'mv' otherwise you are almost
> >guaranteed stale and mixed up content for some
On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 04:49:25PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > We have built a label-based AA prototype. It fails because there is no
> > reasonable way to address the tree renaming problem.
>
> How does inotify not work here? You are notified that the tree is
> moved, your daemon goes through and
Please pull from:
master.kernel.org:/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/bart/ide-2.6.git/
to receive the following updates:
drivers/ide/ide.c |9 ++---
drivers/scsi/ide-scsi.c |2 +-
2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz (1):
ide-scsi: fix
On Friday 15 June 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> ide_set_dma no longer has any modular user.
>
> Signed-off-by: Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
applied
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at
Somewhere between 2.6.18 and 2.6.19, a patch was added to the
kernel that makes it hang on my machine after the message:
apgart: Detected an Intel 965G Chipset.
When I upgraded to 2.6.22-rc4 (from debian trunk), I still ran
into this same bug.
After installing git for the first time, I made my
On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 01:39:14AM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > Pavel, please focus on the current AppArmor implementation. You're
> > remembering a flaw with a previous version of AppArmor. The pathnames
> > constructed with the current version of AppArmor are consistent and
> > correct.
>
>
Hi!
> >> Only case where attacker _can't_ be keeping file descriptors is newly
> >> created files in recently moved tree. But as you already create files
> >> with restrictive permissions, that's okay.
> >>
> >> Yes, you may get some -EPERM during the tree move, but AA has that
> >> problem
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007, Greg KH wrote:
On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 04:30:44PM -0700, Crispin Cowan wrote:
Greg KH wrote:
On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 10:06:23PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
Only case where attacker _can't_ be keeping file descriptors is newly
created files in recently moved tree. But as
On Sat, 16 Jun 2007, Al Viro wrote:
On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 08:13:54PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 15, 2007, Chris Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Obviously Linus feels that the spirit of the GPLv2 is exactly what
he wanted
spirit != letter. He liked the letter. He couldn't
On 06/15, john stultz wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2007-06-15 at 19:52 +0400, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > Could you please look at the message below? I sent it privately near a month
> > ago, but I think these problems are not fixed yet.
>
> Hmm. Maybe you sent it to others on the cc list, as I can't
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> The Coverity checker spotted the following obvious check-after-use in
> drivers/media/dvb/dvb-core/dvb_net.c:
I spotted it before the patch was even applied:
http://www.linuxtv.org/pipermail/v4l-dvb-maintainer/2007-April/003917.html
If only coverity would
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 12:02:41 +0900 Paul Mundt wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 06:32:32PM +0900, Yasunori Goto wrote:
> > > Thanks. I tested compile with cpu/memory hotplug off/on.
> > > It was OK.
> > >
> > > Acked-by: Yasunori Goto <[EMAIL
On Fri, 2007-06-15 at 07:45 -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>
> $ ./test
> offset of foo->x is 8
> offset of bar->x is 4
Looks to me like bar (that is compat_s64) is doing the right thing, no ?
Ben.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a
On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 08:13:54PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 15, 2007, Chris Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Obviously Linus feels that the spirit of the GPLv2 is exactly what
> > he wanted
>
> spirit != letter. He liked the letter. He couldn't even tell spirit
> from
On 6/15/07, Neil Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Good idea... Am I asking too much to have separate things in separate
patches? It makes review easier.
...yeah I got a little bit carried away after the refactoring. I will
spin the refactoring out into a separate patch and handle the coding
On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 04:30:44PM -0700, Crispin Cowan wrote:
> Greg KH wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 10:06:23PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> >
> * Renamed Directory trees: The above problem is compounded with
> directory trees. Changing the name at the top of a large,
On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 05:42:08PM -0400, James Morris wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Jun 2007, Greg KH wrote:
>
> > > Or just create the files with restrictive labels by default. That way
> > > you "fail closed".
> >
> > From my limited knowledge of SELinux, this is the default today so this
> > would
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 12:02:41 +0900 Paul Mundt wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 06:32:32PM +0900, Yasunori Goto wrote:
> > Thanks. I tested compile with cpu/memory hotplug off/on.
> > It was OK.
> >
> > Acked-by: Yasunori Goto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> It would be nice to have this for 2.6.22..
On Thu, 2007-06-14 at 19:29 +0400, Dmitriy Monakhov wrote:
> I just cant belive my eyes then i saw this at the first time...
> simple test: strace dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/file
>
Thanks for reporting it.
> open("/dev/zero", O_RDONLY) = 0
> close(1)= 0
On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 04:20:57PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Oleg Verych wrote:
> >
> > I'm seeing this long (198) thread and just have no idea how it has
> > ended (wiki? hand-mailing?).
>
> I'm hoping it's not "ended".
>
> IOW, I really don't think we
Hi!
> > Yes, you may get some -EPERM during the tree move, but AA has that
> > problem already, see that "when madly moving trees we sometimes
> > construct path file never ever had".
>
> Pavel, please focus on the current AppArmor implementation. You're
> remembering a flaw with a previous
> > > What matters is *my* intent in *choosing* the GPLv2, not *his*
> > > intent in writing it.
> >
> > I beg to differ. By adopting _his_ license you adopted his view. [...]
>
> ianal, but fortunately that's not what the law is. The license says what
> it says, and that is what controls. The
> That might make sense if utrace ever looked like it would solve the
> questions about platforms like ARM
It certainly will. The only difficult limitations have been in
communication and understanding. Please don't perpetuate a generic red
herring without adding any content to the subject.
From: James Bottomley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 16:28:03 -0700
> On Fri, 2007-06-15 at 16:08 -0700, David Miller wrote:
> > From: James Bottomley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 15:40:42 -0700
> >
> > > On Fri, 2007-06-15 at 14:19 -0700, David Miller wrote:
> > >
16 Haz 2007 Cts tarihinde, S.Çağlar Onur şunları yazmıştı:
...
> 3. echo "ondemand" > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/scaling_governor
^^^ performance
Sorry for typo!
>strace -o log -f -tttTTT mpg123 some.mp3
>
> works without a problem [full log @ 3]
Cheers
--
> * Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > My experience with german courts has shown me that the judges I had
>> > to deal with always and foremost did apply a reality check and did
>> > not try to bisect the consequences like an algorithm evaluated by a
>> > machine, i.e. the tried
Hi;
One of our colleagues found following problem with his old laptop while
testing Linus's latest git with external alsa-driver (v1.0.14). And we can
also reproduce same problem with 2.6.18.8 so it seems not a new regression
(if it is a regression).
As a summary "sound stops to work if
On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 10:06:23PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Yes, you may get some -EPERM during the tree move, but AA has that
> problem already, see that "when madly moving trees we sometimes
> construct path file never ever had".
Pavel, please focus on the current AppArmor implementation.
Greg KH wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 10:06:23PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
>
* Renamed Directory trees: The above problem is compounded with
directory trees. Changing the name at the top of a large, bushy
tree can require instant relabeling of millions of
Jan Engelhardt wrote:
On Jun 15 2007 13:07, Phillip Susi wrote:
R.F. Burns wrote:
However, over the past several weeks, the students have found more
creative ways to abuse the PC speaker (outside of the OS.) The Powers
that Be are asking that the PC speakers be disabled completely. With
the
On Fri, 2007-06-15 at 16:08 -0700, David Miller wrote:
> From: James Bottomley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 15:40:42 -0700
>
> > On Fri, 2007-06-15 at 14:19 -0700, David Miller wrote:
> > > Another quirk I have to deal with is that under LDOMs you
> > > can export full disks and
On Wed, 13 Jun 2007, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
>
> Subject: hibernate(?) fails totally - regression
> References : http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/6/1/401
> Submitter : David Greaves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Handled-By : Rafael J. Wysocki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Caused-By : Tejun Heo <[EMAIL
On Tuesday 12 June 2007, Sergei Shtylyov wrote:
> Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
> >>On Feb 20, 2007, at 5:44 PM, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
>
> >>>On Wednesday 21 February 2007 02:19, Suleiman Souhlal wrote:
>
> It can be changed via /proc/ide/hd?/settings.
>
> >>>Why do we need to
On Friday 15 June 2007, Sergei Shtylyov wrote:
> Hello.
>
> Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
>
> > This patch allows users to override both host and device side cable
> > detection
> > with "ideX=ata66" kernel parameter. Thanks to this it should be now
> > possible
> > to use UDMA > 2 modes
Hi,
On Tuesday 05 June 2007, Masatake YAMATO wrote:
> > On 06/04/2007 10:21 PM, Masatake YAMATO wrote:
> > > diff --git a/drivers/ide/ide-taskfile.c b/drivers/ide/ide-taskfile.c
> > > index 30175c7..5e05311 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/ide/ide-taskfile.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/ide/ide-taskfile.c
> >
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007, Jan Kara wrote:
>
> My fix for this problem is already sitting in Andrew's patch queue
> (http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/6/11/79). Rich's patch still has a problem - you
> cannot call udf_discard_prealloc() from drop_inode() because it is called
> under inode_lock and thus you
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 12:42:29 -0700 (PDT)
Roland McGrath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am not in favor of any enhancements to the ptrace interface.
> It is a terrible interface and just needs to die.
That might make sense if utrace ever looked like it would solve the
questions about platforms
On Jun 15, 2007, "Scott Preece" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 6/15/07, Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Jun 15, 2007, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > it irreversibly cuts off certain people from being to distribute
>> > GPLv3-ed software alongside with certain
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Oleg Verych wrote:
>
> I'm seeing this long (198) thread and just have no idea how it has
> ended (wiki? hand-mailing?).
I'm hoping it's not "ended".
IOW, I really don't think we _resolved_ anything, although the work that
Adrian started is continuing through the wiki
On Jun 15, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Friday 15 June 2007 17:24:24 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> On Jun 15, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> PS: Note that Stallmans motivation was *SOURCE* *CODE* *ACCESS* -
>> >> nothing else.
>> Not, it was to be
On Jun 15, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've looked through the GPLv3 and "tivoization" and DRM are the only things
> that are functionally different. In reading the GPLv3 *again* today I got the
> impression that there are more restrictions than grants of rights.
On Jun 15, 2007, Chris Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Obviously Linus feels that the spirit of the GPLv2 is exactly what
> he wanted
spirit != letter. He liked the letter. He couldn't even tell spirit
from letter 2 or 3 days ago.
The spirit is the motivations behind the author of the
> And the preamble, not being part of the active portion of the license, has
> absolutely *ZERO* bearing. Just as it is not the *intent* of RMS, the FSF or
Wrong (again)
The pre-amble is incredibly important as is the intent of the license
creator and even more so of the author.
When trying
On Jun 15, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Friday 15 June 2007 15:49:00 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> On Jun 15, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > On Thursday 14 June 2007 23:19:24 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> >> IANAL, but AFAICT it doesn't. Still, encoded in
1 - 100 of 1293 matches
Mail list logo
