On Sat, 30 Sep 2000, Neil Brown wrote:
> On Friday September 29, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > On Fri, 29 Sep 2000, Pavel Machek wrote:
> >
> > > Are you sure there are no deadlock-when-low-on-memory bugs
> > > hiding somewhere? swap over nbd also *seems* to work.
> >
> > Good that you mention th
On Friday September 29, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Sep 2000, Pavel Machek wrote:
>
> > Are you sure there are no deadlock-when-low-on-memory bugs
> > hiding somewhere? swap over nbd also *seems* to work.
Raid preallocates all the memory that it needs.
When raid1 runs out of pre-alloca
On Wed, Sep 06, 2000 at 02:21:36PM +0200, Dan Aloni wrote:
> > Can someone explain this line from the VIA update?
> > #define FIT(v,min,max) (((v)>(max)?(max):(v))<(min)?(min):(v))
> > Barring side effects on the variables, it is equivalent to
> > #define FIT(v,min,max) ((v)<(min)?(min):(v))
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alexander Viro) wrote on 08.09.00 in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> useless. Care to provide better example? I can, BTW, but it's much more
> convoluted and very rare. Furrfu...
Which is exactly the point *I* am trying to make. The problems you need a
debugger for are exactly the
Linus Torvalds wrote:
> It's about the fact that when I chose the GPL, I did it because I wanted
> the source-code to be free and unencumbered. Forever. Whether I maintained
> that code or not. I didn't want my code to have any extra rules and
> regulations - the GPLv2 is already quite complex eno
On Sat, 9 Sep 2000, Jamie Lokier wrote:
>
> > I think an appropriate concern. The future GPL is constrained by the GPLv2
> > clause 9 to be 'similar in spirit...'. You also dont ever have to take any
> > code that specifies GPLv3 or later.
>
> Linus, nobody can ever force GPLv3 upon you. If y
Alan Cox wrote:
> Every line of code I wrote is under the GPLv2 or later (except those bits
> I contributed that were BSD non advertising derived and which I left the BSD
> license on).
By the way, the tiny amounts of code from me that are in there are GPLv2
or later too. (Do we need a copyrigh
> If anybody wants to explicitly state that their code will be valid under
> any version of the GPL (current or future - whatever they may look like),
> please send patches to say so for the code in question. If you've used the
> FSF boiler-place copyright notice, you already have this in place (i
On Thu, 7 Sep 2000, J. Dow wrote:
> > obpainintheass: haven't you anti-debugger-religion folks been claiming
> > that if you don't have a debugger you're forced to "think about the code
> > to find the correct fix"? so, like, why are you guessing right now? :)
>
> dean, that is another man
> obpainintheass: haven't you anti-debugger-religion folks been claiming
> that if you don't have a debugger you're forced to "think about the code
> to find the correct fix"? so, like, why are you guessing right now? :)
dean, that is another man behind the curtain we are supposed to ignore
wh
Also sprach dean gaudet:
} On Thu, 7 Sep 2000, Bill Wendling wrote:
} > Don't be stupid.
}
} dude, i gave at least three hints that i was joking up there. stupid
} would be if i claimed that it was obvious that a debugger would have
} helped this situation. instead all i'm claiming is that it's
On Thu, 7 Sep 2000, Bill Wendling wrote:
> Also sprach dean gaudet:
> } On Wed, 6 Sep 2000, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> }
> } > Yeah. Maybe we fixed truncate, and maybe we didn't. I've thought that we
> } > fixed it now several times, and I was always wrong.
> }
> } obpainintheass: haven't you ant
Also sprach dean gaudet:
} On Wed, 6 Sep 2000, Linus Torvalds wrote:
}
} > Yeah. Maybe we fixed truncate, and maybe we didn't. I've thought that we
} > fixed it now several times, and I was always wrong.
}
} obpainintheass: haven't you anti-debugger-religion folks been claiming
} that if you do
On Wed, 6 Sep 2000, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Yeah. Maybe we fixed truncate, and maybe we didn't. I've thought that we
> fixed it now several times, and I was always wrong.
obpainintheass: haven't you anti-debugger-religion folks been claiming
that if you don't have a debugger you're forced to "t
Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Yeah. Maybe we fixed truncate, and maybe we didn't. I've thought that
> we fixed it now several times, and I was always wrong. Time for some
> reverse phychology:
>
> I'm sure this one doesn't fix the truncate bug either.
So far things look really promising here. No ext2
Found another bug:
On Wed, Sep 06, 2000 at 03:26:14PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> - pre6:
> - trunate - the never-ending story. Makes me feel like a long
^ here
:-)
Tim.
*/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message t
Also sprach Dan Aloni:
} On Wed, 6 Sep 2000, Peter Samuelson wrote:
}
} > Can someone explain this line from the VIA update?
} > #define FIT(v,min,max) (((v)>(max)?(max):(v))<(min)?(min):(v))
} > Barring side effects on the variables, it is equivalent to
} > #define FIT(v,min,max) ((v)<(min)?
On Wed, 6 Sep 2000, Peter Samuelson wrote:
> > - VIA ide driver update (well, rewrite - the old one was buggy and broken)
>
> Can someone explain this line from the VIA update?
> #define FIT(v,min,max) (((v)>(max)?(max):(v))<(min)?(min):(v))
> Barring side effects on the variables, it is e
[Linus]
> - pre5
> - truncate. Guess what? We threw away the key to the clue-box.
> - simplify signal notification. And remember the spinlock.
> - VIA ide driver update (well, rewrite - the old one was buggy and broken)
Can someone explain this line from the VIA update?
#define F
19 matches
Mail list logo
