[lkml]   [2006]   [Jun]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: utsname/hostname
On Sun, 4 Jun 2006 13:50:11 -0700 Andrew Morton wrote:

> It's time to take a look at the -mm queue for 2.6.18.
> When replying to this email pleeeeeeze rewrite the Subject: to something
> appropriate so we do not all go mad. Thanks.
> proc-sysctl-add-_proc_do_string-helper.patch
> namespaces-add-nsproxy.patch
> namespaces-add-nsproxy-dont-include-compileh.patch
> namespaces-incorporate-fs-namespace-into-nsproxy.patch
> namespaces-utsname-introduce-temporary-helpers.patch
> namespaces-utsname-switch-to-using-uts-namespaces.patch
> namespaces-utsname-switch-to-using-uts-namespaces-alpha-fix.patch
> namespaces-utsname-switch-to-using-uts-namespaces-cleanup.patch
> namespaces-utsname-use-init_utsname-when-appropriate.patch
> namespaces-utsname-use-init_utsname-when-appropriate-cifs-update.patch
> namespaces-utsname-implement-utsname-namespaces.patch
> namespaces-utsname-implement-utsname-namespaces-export.patch
> namespaces-utsname-implement-utsname-namespaces-dont-include-compileh.patch
> namespaces-utsname-sysctl-hack.patch
> namespaces-utsname-sysctl-hack-cleanup.patch
> namespaces-utsname-sysctl-hack-cleanup-2.patch
> namespaces-utsname-sysctl-hack-cleanup-2-fix.patch
> namespaces-utsname-remove-system_utsname.patch
> namespaces-utsname-implement-clone_newuts-flag.patch
> uts-copy-nsproxy-only-when-needed.patch
> # needed if git-klibc isn't there:
> #namespaces-utsname-switch-to-using-uts-namespaces-klibc-bit.patch
> #namespaces-utsname-use-init_utsname-when-appropriate-klibc-bit.patch
> #namespaces-utsname-switch-to-using-uts-namespaces-klibc-bit-2.patch
> 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).

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?

> I don't want to carry an ever-growing stream of OS-virtualisation
> groundwork patches for ever and ever so if we're going to do this thing...
> faster, please.

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: 2006-06-05 02:01    [W:0.372 / U:0.952 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site