Alan Cox wrote:
> > > AFAIK, this hasn't ever been true. I have never had to specifically
> > > enable it at run time.
> >
> > I was suspicious of that in the old doc but thought I'd leave it in...
> > Should have asked for feedback on it, but you caught it anyway, thanks!
> >
> > Here's a patch
> > AFAIK, this hasn't ever been true. I have never had to specifically
> > enable it at run time.
>
> I was suspicious of that in the old doc but thought I'd leave it in...
> Should have asked for feedback on it, but you caught it anyway, thanks!
>
> Here's a patch against the first that simpl
Jonathan Earle wrote:
> > On Sun, 28 Jan 2001 11:35:50 +, David Ford wrote:
> > > AFAIK, this hasn't ever been true. I have never had to specifically
> > > enable it at run time.
> >
> > I was suspicious of that in the old doc but thought I'd leave it in...
> > Should have asked for feedback
> On Sun, 28 Jan 2001 11:35:50 +, David Ford wrote:
> > AFAIK, this hasn't ever been true. I have never had to specifically
> > enable it at run time.
>
> I was suspicious of that in the old doc but thought I'd leave it in...
> Should have asked for feedback on it, but you caught it
> anywa
On Sun, 28 Jan 2001 11:35:50 +, David Ford wrote:
> AFAIK, this hasn't ever been true. I have never had to specifically
> enable it at run time.
I was suspicious of that in the old doc but thought I'd leave it in...
Should have asked for feedback on it, but you caught it anyway, thanks!
Her
"Jeremy M. Dolan" wrote:
> +Note that previous versions disabled sysrq by default, and you were required
> +to specifically enable it at run-time. That is not the case any longer.
AFAIK, this hasn't ever been true. I have never had to specifically enable it at
run time. There are certain distr
6 matches
Mail list logo
