On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 03:33:19PM +0900, Masao Uebayashi wrote:
> > I did; bus attachments.
>
> If you pay a little more respect to engineers, you'll find this is
> almost same as Iain's saying and what I wrote in the first mail.
huh? he asked me what I meant, I said what I meant...
--
Dav
On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 08:02:51AM -0500, der Mouse wrote:
>>> [st_dev] does not have to correspond, though, to anything else in
>>> the system.
>> Not really, no, but it may as well be the same as what's in st_rdev.
>
> If there still is an st_rdev. I see no particular reason that needs to
>> In some respects. But lurking under all this has been doing away
>> with st_rdev, which [...]
> Well, no, we're doing away with a specific interpretation of the
> contents of st_rdev. Getting rid of st_rdev itself doesn't serve much
> further purpose.
If we do away with device numbers - I thin
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 07:31:58PM +, David Holland wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 06:33:04PM +0900, Masao Uebayashi wrote:
> > > Well, first of all nothing says you can't read the whole file before
> > > resolving dependencies; there's nothing inherently wrong with
> > >
> > > define fo
