![]() | |||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Sun, 4 Jun 2006 18:06:18 -0700 Andrew Morton wrote: > On Sun, 4 Jun 2006 17:02:18 -0700> "Randy.Dunlap" <rdunlap@xenotime.net> wrote: > > > > utsname virtualisation. This doesn't seem very pointful as a standalone > > > thing. That's a general problem with infrastructural work for a very > > > large new feature. > > > > > > So probably I'll continue to babysit these patches, unless someone can > > > identify a decent reason why mainline needs this work.> > > > Not a strong argument for mainline, but I have a patch to make > > <hostname> larger (up to 255 bytes, per POSIX). > > http://www.xenotime.net/linux/patches/hostname-2617-rc5b.patch > > My immediate reaction to that was to tell posix to go take a hike. I mean, > sheesh. well thanks for finally replying then. That's my reaction to some other patches (in -mm) as well (not that it matters). > > I can either update my hostname patch against mm/utsname.. or not. > > But I don't really want to see some/any patch blocked due to a patch > > in -mm being borderline "pointful," so how do we deal with this?> > Well first we need to work out if there's any vague reason why we need to > mucky up our kernel by implementing this dopey spec. If there is such a > reason then I guess I drop all the ustname patches and ask that they be > redone. They're a bit straggly and a refactoring/rechanngelogging wouldn't > hurt. Fixing the changelog is easy. What refactoring do you mean? --- ~Randy - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||
| Last update: 2006-06-05 05:11 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||