On Thu, 2005-04-07 at 09:36 +0200, Guillaume Thouvenin wrote: > Hi Evgeniy, > > I forgot to put you in the CC of the email so I'm forwarding a post > about the connector sent on lkml.
Ok, I'm in.
> Best regards,
> Guillaume
> email message attachment, "Forwarded message - Re: connector is
> missing in 2.6.12-rc2-mm1"
> On Thu, 2005-04-07 at 09:36 +0200, Guillaume Thouvenin wrote:
> > Guillaume Thouvenin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > I don't see the connector directory in the 2.6.12-rc2-mm1 tree. So it
> > > seems that you removed the connector?
> >
> > Greg dropped it for some reason. I think that's best because it needed a
> > significant amount of rework. I'd like to see it resubitted in totality so
> > we can take another look at it.
Hmm, what exactly do you think _must_ be changed?
Most of your comments are addressed in 4 patches I sent to you and Greg.
Others [mostly atomic allocation] are API extensions and will be added.
There also not included flush on callback removal.
> > It's a new piece of core kernel infrastructure and the barriers for that
> > are necessarily high.
> >
> > > Will you include it again in futur
> > > release? At the same time, will you include the fork connector?
> >
> > I could put the fork connector into -mm, but would like to be convinced
> > that it's acceptable to and useful for all system accounting requirements,
> > not just the one project. That means code, please.
SuperIO and kobject_uevent are also dropped as far as I can see.
Acrypto is being reviewed but it also depends on it, although
it takes to much time, probably will be dropped too.
Proper w1 notification also requires connector.
--
Evgeniy Polyakov
Crash is better than data corruption -- Arthur Grabowski
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
