[lkml]   [2002]   [Jan]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: A modest proposal -- We need a patch penguin

    On Tue, 29 Jan 2002, Daniel Phillips wrote:

    > [...] Consider my patch to fix group descriptor corruption in Ext2,
    > submitted half a dozen times to Linus and other maintainers over the
    > course of two years, which was clearly explained, passed scrutiny on
    > ext2-devel and lkml, fixed a real problem that really bit people and
    > which I'd been running myself over the entire period. Which one of
    > cleanliness, concept, timing or testing did I violate?
    > If the answer is 'none of the above', then what is wrong with this
    > picture?

    am i correct that you are referring to this patch?:

    was this the first iteration of your patch? Your mail is a little more
    than 1 year old. You rated the patch as: 'The fix below is kind of
    gross.'. Clearly, this does not help getting patches applied.

    the ext2 bh-handling code had cleanliness issues before. I had ext2
    patches rejected by Linus because they kept the method of passing around
    double-pointers, and i have to agree that the code was far from clean. Al
    did lots of cleanups in this area, and i think he fixed this issue as
    well, didnt he? So where is the problem exactly, does 2.4 still have this

    in terms of 2.2 and 2.0, you should contact the respective maintainers.


    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:15    [W:0.023 / U:48.708 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site