> Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 11:41:19AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >
> >>I'd support an ununofficial rule that submitters of new syscalls also
> >> raise a patch against LTP, come to that...
> >
> >
> > s/ununofficial//, please. And extend this to every new kernel
> I'd support an ununofficial rule that submitters of new syscalls also raise
> a patch against LTP, come to that...
And a patch for the manpages. Definitely in favor.
-Andi
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
M
Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 11:41:19AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
I'd support an ununofficial rule that submitters of new syscalls also raise
a patch against LTP, come to that...
s/ununofficial//, please. And extend this to every new kernel interface
that's not bound t
On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 11:41:19AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> I'd support an ununofficial rule that submitters of new syscalls also raise
> a patch against LTP, come to that...
s/ununofficial//, please. And extend this to every new kernel interface
that's not bound to a specific piece of hardw
On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 11:20:47AM -0700, Mark Fasheh wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 11:45:03AM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 02:22:13AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:07:37 +0200 Heiko Carstens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > wrote:
> > > > We reserv
On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 20:05:31 +0200
Heiko Carstens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Alternatively I can push them directly to Linus along with other ext4
> > patches. We can drop the s390 patch if Martin or Heiko wants to wire
> > it up themselves.
>
> Yes, please drop the s390 patch. In general it
On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 08:05:31PM +0200, Heiko Carstens wrote:
> > Alternatively I can push them directly to Linus along with other ext4
> > patches. We can drop the s390 patch if Martin or Heiko wants to wire
> > it up themselves.
>
> Yes, please drop the s390 patch. In general it seems to be b
On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 11:45:03AM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 02:22:13AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:07:37 +0200 Heiko Carstens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > We reserved a different syscall number than the one that is used right now
> > > in t
> Alternatively I can push them directly to Linus along with other ext4
> patches. We can drop the s390 patch if Martin or Heiko wants to wire
> it up themselves.
Yes, please drop the s390 patch. In general it seems to be better if only
one architecture gets a syscall wired up initially and let o
On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:45:03 -0400 Theodore Tso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 02:22:13AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:07:37 +0200 Heiko Carstens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > We reserved a different syscall number than the one that is used right
On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 02:22:13AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:07:37 +0200 Heiko Carstens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > We reserved a different syscall number than the one that is used right now
> > in the patch. Please drop this patch... Martin or I will wire up the sysca
On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:07:37 +0200 Heiko Carstens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > fallocate-implementation-on-i86-x86_64-and-powerpc.patch
>
> Still broken: arch/x86_64/ia32/ia32entry.S wants compat_sys_fallocate instead
> of sys_fallocate. Also compat_sys_fallocate probably should be moved to
> f
> fallocate-implementation-on-i86-x86_64-and-powerpc.patch
Still broken: arch/x86_64/ia32/ia32entry.S wants compat_sys_fallocate instead
of sys_fallocate. Also compat_sys_fallocate probably should be moved to
fs/compat.c.
> fallocate-on-s390.patch
We reserved a different syscall number than the
13 matches
Mail list logo
