Jonathan Lemon wrote:
>
> In article [EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
> > Blast from the past. This patch seemed reasonable to me at the time, but I
> >notice you didn't commit it. Any reason why? The issue has just come up
> >again on -questions.
>
> It shouldn't be needed.
Ok, you
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
> Blast from the past. This patch seemed reasonable to me at the time, but I
>notice you didn't commit it. Any reason why? The issue has just come up
>again on -questions.
It shouldn't be needed. Instead, the following logic is used:
Doug Barton wrote:
> Blast from the past. This patch seemed reasonable to me at the time, but I
> notice you didn't commit it. Any reason why? The issue has just come up
> again on -questions.
I seem to recall finding it had been fixed elsewhere, though
unfortunately I can't remember the d
Blast from the past. This patch seemed reasonable to me at the time, but I
notice you didn't commit it. Any reason why? The issue has just come up
again on -questions.
Doug
Ben Smithurst wrote:
>
> Fred Gilham wrote:
>
> > In 4.1-stable tail -f over NFS polls rather than blocking.
>
>
