tags 474648 +patch
thanks
On Mon, Apr 07, 2008, Sam Hocevar wrote:
> Package: linux-image-2.6.24-1-amd64
> Version: 2.6.24-5
> Severity: important
>
> CONFIG_SECCOMP was disabled for performance reasons, but it has always
> been harmless.
Dear maintainers,
any news on
block 477674 by 474648
thanks
On Mon, Apr 07, 2008, maximilian attems wrote:
> > > unless something substantial comes up that bug can be close right away.
> >
> >Wow, thanks for listening to the users.
>
> if it had users we already would have been notified.
By the way, our first researc
On Mon, Apr 07, 2008, maximilian attems wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 07, 2008 at 11:21:24AM +0200, Sam Hocevar wrote:
> >Okay, but I'm not asking for CONFIG_SECCOMP_DISABLE_TSC, just
> > CONFIG_SECCOMP, which is completely harmless (unless you can tell me
> > where the harm
On Mon, Apr 07, 2008, maximilian attems wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 07, 2008 at 12:47:56AM +0200, Sam Hocevar wrote:
> >
> > CONFIG_SECCOMP was disabled for performance reasons, but it has always
> > been harmless. Quoting the author:
> >
> > | On x86-64 SECCOMP gen
Package: linux-image-2.6.24-1-amd64
Version: 2.6.24-5
Severity: important
CONFIG_SECCOMP was disabled for performance reasons, but it has always
been harmless. Quoting the author:
| On x86-64 SECCOMP generates absoutely zero performance hit.
|
| The original seccomp patch for x86 also generat
On Tue, Mar 14, 2006, Andres Salomon wrote:
> Hi,
Hi!
> I am going through the expulsion process to have Sven Luther removed
> from the project.
Hahaha oh wow. You got it the wrong way, you should only do that
_after_ someone posts http://zoy.org/~sam/ftwcal.jpeg to d-d-a. Now I
have no ot
6 matches
Mail list logo
