On Fri, 9 Mar 2007, Stefan Richter wrote:
> Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> > if someone can't immediately see what i'm trying
> > to do given the previously-posted patch, then they shouldn't be
> > commenting on it one way or the other.
>
> I'm not sure if you are addressing me too. Just to clarify:
Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> if someone can't immediately see what i'm trying
> to do given the previously-posted patch, then they shouldn't be
> commenting on it one way or the other.
I'm not sure if you are addressing me too. Just to clarify: I wasn't
commenting on the patch, I only commented on
On Fri, 9 Mar 2007, Stefan Richter wrote:
> Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> > each simplification could be submitted as
> > a separate arch-specific patch, as many things are.
> >
> > i was more asking about the *philosophy* of that patch,
>
> The justification of this initial patch is more obvious if
Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> each simplification could be submitted as
> a separate arch-specific patch, as many things are.
>
> i was more asking about the *philosophy* of that patch,
The justification of this initial patch is more obvious if followed up
by those subsequent patches which make use
On Fri, 9 Mar 2007, Stefan Richter wrote:
> Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> > i asked about this a while back, but i still haven't heard a
> > definitive response as to whether it's acceptable.
>
> Maybe you get response if you post a complete patch.
that *was* the complete patch -- its purpose was
On Fri, 9 Mar 2007, Stefan Richter wrote:
Robert P. J. Day wrote:
i asked about this a while back, but i still haven't heard a
definitive response as to whether it's acceptable.
Maybe you get response if you post a complete patch.
that *was* the complete patch -- its purpose was simply
Robert P. J. Day wrote:
each simplification could be submitted as
a separate arch-specific patch, as many things are.
i was more asking about the *philosophy* of that patch,
The justification of this initial patch is more obvious if followed up
by those subsequent patches which make use of
On Fri, 9 Mar 2007, Stefan Richter wrote:
Robert P. J. Day wrote:
each simplification could be submitted as
a separate arch-specific patch, as many things are.
i was more asking about the *philosophy* of that patch,
The justification of this initial patch is more obvious if followed
Robert P. J. Day wrote:
if someone can't immediately see what i'm trying
to do given the previously-posted patch, then they shouldn't be
commenting on it one way or the other.
I'm not sure if you are addressing me too. Just to clarify: I wasn't
commenting on the patch, I only commented on
On Fri, 9 Mar 2007, Stefan Richter wrote:
Robert P. J. Day wrote:
if someone can't immediately see what i'm trying
to do given the previously-posted patch, then they shouldn't be
commenting on it one way or the other.
I'm not sure if you are addressing me too. Just to clarify: I
Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> i asked about this a while back, but i still haven't heard a
> definitive response as to whether it's acceptable.
Maybe you get response if you post a complete patch.
--
Stefan Richter
-=-=-=== --== -=--=
http://arcgraph.de/sr/
-
To unsubscribe from this list:
i asked about this a while back, but i still haven't heard a
definitive response as to whether it's acceptable. that is, extending
the header file "asm-generic/ioctl.h" to allow arch-specific ioctl.h
header files to override what little might need to be changed from the
generic file:
i asked about this a while back, but i still haven't heard a
definitive response as to whether it's acceptable. that is, extending
the header file asm-generic/ioctl.h to allow arch-specific ioctl.h
header files to override what little might need to be changed from the
generic file:
Robert P. J. Day wrote:
i asked about this a while back, but i still haven't heard a
definitive response as to whether it's acceptable.
Maybe you get response if you post a complete patch.
--
Stefan Richter
-=-=-=== --== -=--=
http://arcgraph.de/sr/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send
14 matches
Mail list logo
