On Mon, Apr 18, 2005 at 12:14:06PM -0500, Miller, Mike (OS Dev) wrote:
> > From: Christoph Hellwig [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > This looks like a patch for Linux 2.4. Such major changes for the
> > 2.4 tree don't make sense anymore, especially for
> > functionality not even in Linux 2.6.
>
On Mon, Apr 18, 2005 at 04:42:26PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> This looks like a patch for Linux 2.4. Such major changes for the
> 2.4 tree don't make sense anymore, especially for functionality not
> even in Linux 2.6.
Agreed.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe li
> From: Christoph Hellwig [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> This looks like a patch for Linux 2.4. Such major changes for the
> 2.4 tree don't make sense anymore, especially for
> functionality not even in Linux 2.6.
>
This is for 2.4, I should have specified that in the Subject line. We
did this
On Mon, 2005-04-18 at 10:36 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> +
> +/*
> + * Extended block operations for dump for preserving binary compatibility.
> + */
> +struct block_dump_ops {
> + int (*sanity_check)(void *device);
> + int (*rw_block)(void *device, int rw, unsigned long dump_block_nr,
On Mon, 2005-04-18 at 10:36 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Please review the following patches and provide any comments or feedback.
> Patch 1 of 9
what diskdump do you use?
Why do we even look at disk dump when kexec based dump can dump to disk
too and is otherwise more flexible and superior?
This looks like a patch for Linux 2.4. Such major changes for the
2.4 tree don't make sense anymore, especially for functionality not
even in Linux 2.6.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at
6 matches
Mail list logo
