I would relly like the dscussion to go on widely as it is now.
Otherwise I would probably not follow this interesting discussion.
best regards
keld
On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 10:02:09PM +0100, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> russell, good to hear from you.
>
> can i recommend, that although t
russell, good to hear from you.
can i recommend, that although this is a really wide set of
cross-posting on a discussion that underpins pretty much everything
(except gnu/hurd and minix) because it's linux kernel, that, just as
steve kindly advised, we keep this to e.g.
cross-dis...@lists.linaro.
Russell:
On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux
wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 11:11:41AM -0500, Bill Gatliff wrote:
>> As such refactoring consolidated larger and larger chunks of kernel
>> code, new designs would gravitate towards those consolidated
>> implementations beca
On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 11:11:41AM -0500, Bill Gatliff wrote:
> As such refactoring consolidated larger and larger chunks of kernel
> code, new designs would gravitate towards those consolidated
> implementations because they would be the dominant references.
Don't bet on it. That's not how it wo
David:
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 6:55 PM, wrote:
> ARM is currently in worse shape than the PC market ever was in this aspect,
> but in this case it's less a matter of getting the hardware guys to change
> what they do than it is to get better documentation of what the hardware is
> really doing a
5 matches
Mail list logo
