On Thu, 17 Apr 2014 22:08:54 +0200
"Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" wrote:
> >> In the docs we could take pains to point out that these are
> >> file-_description_ locks and not file-_descriptor_ locks, and outline
> >> why that is so (which is something I'm trying to make crystal clear in
> >> the
>> In the docs we could take pains to point out that these are
>> file-_description_ locks and not file-_descriptor_ locks, and outline
>> why that is so (which is something I'm trying to make crystal clear in
>> the docs anyway).
>>
>> Does anyone object to that?
>
> Well, I'd be silly to object,
Am 17.04.2014 13:52, schrieb Jeff Layton:
> On Thu, 17 Apr 2014 00:42:13 +0200
> "Stefan (metze) Metzmacher" wrote:
>
>> Am 16.04.2014 22:00, schrieb Michael Kerrisk (man-pages):
>>> [CC += Jeremy Allison]
>>>
>>> On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 8:57 PM, Jeff Layton wrote:
Sorry to spam so many lis
On 04/17/2014 01:52 PM, Jeff Layton wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Apr 2014 00:42:13 +0200
> "Stefan (metze) Metzmacher" wrote:
>
>> Am 16.04.2014 22:00, schrieb Michael Kerrisk (man-pages):
>>> [CC += Jeremy Allison]
>>>
>>> On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 8:57 PM, Jeff Layton wrote:
Sorry to spam so many li
On Thu, 17 Apr 2014 00:42:13 +0200
"Stefan (metze) Metzmacher" wrote:
> Am 16.04.2014 22:00, schrieb Michael Kerrisk (man-pages):
> > [CC += Jeremy Allison]
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 8:57 PM, Jeff Layton wrote:
> >> Sorry to spam so many lists, but I think this needs widespread
> >> distr
On 04/17/2014 02:31 AM, Jim Lieb wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 16, 2014 13:16:33 Jeremy Allison wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 10:00:46PM +0200, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
>>> [CC += Jeremy Allison]
>>>
>>> On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 8:57 PM, Jeff Layton wrote:
Sorry to spam so many li
On Wednesday, April 16, 2014 13:16:33 Jeremy Allison wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 10:00:46PM +0200, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
> > [CC += Jeremy Allison]
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 8:57 PM, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > > Sorry to spam so many lists, but I think this needs widespread
>
Am 16.04.2014 22:00, schrieb Michael Kerrisk (man-pages):
> [CC += Jeremy Allison]
>
> On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 8:57 PM, Jeff Layton wrote:
>> Sorry to spam so many lists, but I think this needs widespread
>> distribution and consensus.
>>
>> File-private locks have been merged into Linux for v3.1
On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 10:00:46PM +0200, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
> [CC += Jeremy Allison]
>
> On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 8:57 PM, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > Sorry to spam so many lists, but I think this needs widespread
> > distribution and consensus.
> >
> > File-private locks have been mer
[CC += Jeremy Allison]
On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 8:57 PM, Jeff Layton wrote:
> Sorry to spam so many lists, but I think this needs widespread
> distribution and consensus.
>
> File-private locks have been merged into Linux for v3.15, and *now*
> people are commenting that the name and macro definit
Sorry to spam so many lists, but I think this needs widespread
distribution and consensus.
File-private locks have been merged into Linux for v3.15, and *now*
people are commenting that the name and macro definitions for the new
file-private locks suck.
...and I can't even disagree. They do suck.
11 matches
Mail list logo