On Thursday 14 June 2007 23:19:24 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 14, 2007, Florin Malita <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 06/14/2007 05:39 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >> Back when GPLv2 was written, the right to run was never considered an
> >> issue. It was taken for granted, because copyright
On Friday 15 June 2007 01:38:41 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 15, 2007, Bron Gondwana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > #define Dell CFG_FAVOURITE_VENDOR
> >
> > A Dell desktop machine is a piece of hardware. The manufacturer has the
> > source code (hypothetically) to the BIOS. The BIOS is requir
On Friday 15 June 2007 02:29:32 Glauber de Oliveira Costa wrote:
> > As a simple matter of fact, the *only* activities covered by the GPLv2
> > are "copying, distributing and modifying". It says so in the license
> > itself.
>
> Unless I have explicitly installed linux myself in the box, I have
> r
On Friday 15 June 2007 02:59:31 Jesper Juhl wrote:
> > > All quite valid reasons in my opinion.
> >
> > and all wrong.
> >
> > Look up the owning and controlling interests in Tivo and you'll find the
> > correct reason - stopping you doing evil things like keeping movies
> > you've recorded or upl
On Friday 15 June 2007 04:25:24 David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-06-14 at 21:44 -0400, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
> > Agreed. I said I wasn't going to argue about it because there *ARE*
> > distinctions that the law makes and the GPL ignores. You can't have it
> &
On Friday 15 June 2007 02:24:37 Michael Gerdau wrote:
> > Because GPLv2 doesn't enforce limitations on the hardware a GPL'd work
> > can be put on. It doesn't make artificial distinctions between
> > "Commercial", "Industrial" and "User". What it does is *ATTEMPT* to
> > ensure that nobody receivin
On Friday 15 June 2007 05:30:09 Bernd Paysan wrote:
> On Friday 15 June 2007 01:46, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > if you cannot modify the software that runs on your Tivo hardware you
> > haven't tried very hard.
>
> Yes, but the GPLv2 clearly says that you don't have to try very hard. The
> preferr
On Friday 15 June 2007 05:17:44 David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-06-15 at 04:58 -0400, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
> > > If the module is distributed 'as a separate work', _then_ what you say
> > > is true: the only reason you'd have a right to the source is
On Friday 15 June 2007 06:18:59 David Greaves wrote:
> Daniel Hazelton wrote:
> >> Now for a different PoV:
> >> Do I think Tivoisation is bad for the community ?
> >> Of course I think it is but your mileage may vary.
> >
> > And I happen to agree with yo
On Friday 15 June 2007 06:02:11 Bernd Paysan wrote:
> On Friday 15 June 2007 07:24, Theodore Tso wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 08:20:19PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> > > So, you see, your statement above, about wanting to be able to use
> > > other people's improvements, cannot be taken wi
On Friday 15 June 2007 07:45:22 Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> > And, as I've taken the time to explain to you, lacking any clear
> > statement, written at the exact same time as the license, a
>
> statement of
>
> > intent or spirit cannot have any real legal weight when the text of a
> > license is fin
On Friday 15 June 2007 07:32:01 Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> Le Ven 15 juin 2007 12:53, Jesper Juhl a écrit :
> > On 15/06/07, Nicolas Mailhot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >> > by your argument, the user has some "right to modify the
> >>
> >> software", on
> >>
> >> >> > that piece of hardware it b
On Friday 15 June 2007 06:49:05 David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-06-15 at 06:03 -0400, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
> > In other words, it applies to *SECTIONS* of the code, not to individual
> > object code files. This is why kernel modules can have their own,
> > separate li
On Friday 15 June 2007 12:22:16 Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 08:45:43AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Fri, 15 Jun 2007, Carlo Wood wrote:
> > The way "collective works" work, there are two separate copyrights: there
> > is the copyright in the "separate contribution", which i
On Friday 15 June 2007 09:02:54 Carlo Wood wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 06:33:51AM -0400, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
> > Incorrect. Read section 9 of the GPLv2. It's pretty clear that the "any
> > later version" clause is optional. Whats more is that since the
On Friday 15 June 2007 09:12:43 David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-06-15 at 14:58 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * David Woodhouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > If even linking was considered 'mere aggregation on a volume of a
> > > storage or distribution medium', then when would the 'But whe
On Friday 15 June 2007 15:37:04 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 15, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Friday 15 June 2007 02:59:31 Jesper Juhl wrote:
> >> it doesn't say anything about being able to run a compiled version
> >> o
On Friday 15 June 2007 15:49:15 David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-06-15 at 11:23 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Fri, 15 Jun 2007, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > > Actually, I don't see where it explicitly states that it only covers
> > > derived work.
> >
> > See "Section 0":
> >
> > The "
On Friday 15 June 2007 15:49:00 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 15, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thursday 14 June 2007 23:19:24 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >> IANAL, but AFAICT it doesn't. Still, encoded in the spirit (that
> >> re
On Friday 15 June 2007 16:04:15 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 15, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thursday 14 June 2007 23:39:50 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >> On Jun 14, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > You&#x
On Friday 15 June 2007 17:24:24 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 15, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> PS: Note that Stallmans motivation was *SOURCE* *CODE* *ACCESS* -
> >> nothing
> >
> > else.
>
> Not, it was to be able to modify
On Friday 15 June 2007 17:45:16 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 15, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Friday 15 June 2007 15:37:04 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >> On Jun 15, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > On Frid
On Friday 15 June 2007 18:06:11 Michael Gerdau wrote:
> > > I find it obvious that the GPL was meant to prevent such to be
> > > possible. This is what I mean by the "the spirit of the GPL".
> >
> > Umm. It may well have been meant by *rms*. But your argument fatally
> > falls down on the fact that
On Friday 15 June 2007 19:39:57 Michael Gerdau wrote:
> > > > What matters is *my* intent in *choosing* the GPLv2, not *his*
> > > > intent in writing it.
> > >
> > > I beg to differ. By adopting _his_ license you adopted his view. [...]
> >
> > ianal, but fortunately that's not what the law is. Th
On Friday 15 June 2007 20:22:50 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 15, 2007, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > * Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> On Jun 15, 2007, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > it irreversibly cuts off certain people from being to distribute
> >>
On Friday 15 June 2007 23:44:00 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 16, 2007, Tim Post <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Fri, 2007-06-15 at 23:29 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >> Tivo has two choices: either it gives
> >> users the content they want to watch, or it goes out of business. Is
> >> that legi
On Friday 15 June 2007 22:16:30 Bron Gondwana wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 04:26:34PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> > On Jun 15, 2007, Bron Gondwana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > What happens if you're debugging something you think is a bug in the
> > > Linux kernel and then you run bang i
On Saturday 16 June 2007 12:57:59 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 16, 2007, Bernd Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >> On Jun 15, 2007, Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>> What this means for the FSF goals if Tivo get up one morning and switch
> >>> their system
On Saturday 16 June 2007 13:14:29 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 16, 2007, Bron Gondwana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 05:22:21AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >> On Jun 15, 2007, Bron Gondwana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > because it could easily be argued that they
On Saturday 16 June 2007 04:21:04 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 16, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Friday 15 June 2007 23:44:00 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >> On Jun 16, 2007, Tim Post <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > On Fri, 20
On Saturday 16 June 2007 15:27:37 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 16, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I don't see how TiVO has done this. They have placed no restrictions on
> > *modification* at all. What they have done is placed a restriction o
On Saturday 16 June 2007 18:01:59 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 16, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Saturday 16 June 2007 04:21:04 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >> On Jun 16, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > In
On Saturday 16 June 2007 21:49:56 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 16, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Saturday 16 June 2007 15:27:37 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >> On Jun 16, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > I d
On Saturday 16 June 2007 21:54:56 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 16, 2007, Bron Gondwana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I obviously wasn't clear enough. The only way to come into complience
> > with GPL3dd4 is to reduce your ability to fix things or grant everyone
> > else the ability to mess wit
On Saturday 16 June 2007 23:31:00 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 17, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > But each of those arguments is based on a technicality.
>
> They're based on the Free Software definition, that establishes the
> four freedoms
On Sunday 17 June 2007 00:19:49 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 17, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Saturday 16 June 2007 21:54:56 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >> There may be laws that require certification or limitations on the
> >> user. M
On Sunday 17 June 2007 01:09:01 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 17, 2007, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sat, 16 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >> I've already explained what the spirit of the GPL is.
> >
> > No. You've explained one thing only: that you cannot see that people
On Sunday 17 June 2007 02:27:42 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 17, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sunday 17 June 2007 01:09:01 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >> On Jun 17, 2007, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >
On Sunday 17 June 2007 09:54:39 Michael Poole wrote:
> Daniel Hazelton writes:
> > But your server doesn't run the internet. TiVO may use phone lines to
> > connect a device to their server (and this is an example - I don't know
> > how TiVO devices actually
On Sunday 17 June 2007 14:46:05 Michael Poole wrote:
> Daniel Hazelton writes:
> > On Sunday 17 June 2007 09:54:39 Michael Poole wrote:
> >> Daniel Hazelton writes:
> >> > But your server doesn't run the internet. TiVO may use phone lines to
> >> > c
On Sunday 17 June 2007 15:32:34 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 17, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sunday 17 June 2007 09:54:39 Michael Poole wrote:
> >> What in the world makes you think there is a useful analogy
> >> between communication
On Friday 25 May 2007 12:55:21 Daniel Hazelton wrote:
> As to the performance - I can see absolutely no reason why the minimal
> version shouldn't perform the same (or better). The kernel codes memset and
> memcpy routines have been heavily tested *and* optimized over the years and
Test code for this version (take 4) of the minimized LZO1X (from the liblzo
v2) is complete.
I don't see a significant slow-down comparing the complete liblzo2 to this
minimized code on my system (Pentium M 1.73GHz, 1GB Ram, Kubuntu Feisty
(stock Kubuntu kernel)). Rather, I see the opposite.
On Monday 28 May 2007 04:37:04 Nitin Gupta wrote:
> On 5/28/07, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Test code for this version (take 4) of the minimized LZO1X (from the
> > liblzo v2) is complete.
> >
> >
> > I don't see a significant slow-dow
On Monday 28 May 2007 05:08:54 Nitin Gupta wrote:
> On 5/28/07, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Monday 28 May 2007 04:37:04 Nitin Gupta wrote:
> > > On 5/28/07, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > &
On Monday 28 May 2007 05:46:59 Nitin Gupta wrote:
> On 5/28/07, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Monday 28 May 2007 05:08:54 Nitin Gupta wrote:
> > > On 5/28/07, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > On Monday 28 May 2007 04:
On Monday 28 May 2007 10:40:31 Nitin Gupta wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Attached is tester code used for testing.
> (developed by Daniel Hazelton -- modified slightly to now use 'take 6'
> version for 'TinyLZO')
>
> Cheers,
> Nitin
>
I haven&
On Monday 28 May 2007 11:30:55 Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Mon, May 28, 2007 at 08:10:31PM +0530, Nitin Gupta wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Attached is tester code used for testing.
> > (developed by Daniel Hazelton -- modified slightly to now use 'take 6'
> > versi
On Monday 28 May 2007 11:47:55 Nitin Gupta wrote:
> On 5/28/07, Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Mon, May 28, 2007 at 08:10:31PM +0530, Nitin Gupta wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Attached is tester code used for testing.
> > > (devel
On Monday 28 May 2007 13:01:09 Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Mon, May 28, 2007 at 11:55:14AM -0400, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
> >...
> > This is my guess as well. Though performance will likely drop when I make
> > the noinline macro mean something. (This may be offset by figuring
On Monday 28 May 2007 13:11:15 Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Mon, May 28, 2007 at 09:33:32PM +0530, Nitin Gupta wrote:
> > On 5/28/07, Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >...
> >
> >> - then ensure that it works correctly on all architectures and
> >
> > Already tested on x86, amd64, ppc (by Bret).
On Monday 28 May 2007 13:11:15 Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Mon, May 28, 2007 at 09:33:32PM +0530, Nitin Gupta wrote:
> > On 5/28/07, Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >...
> >
> >> - then ensure that it works correctly on all architectures and
> >
> > Already tested on x86, amd64, ppc (by Bret).
On Monday 28 May 2007 16:18:40 Daniel Hazelton wrote:
> On Monday 28 May 2007 13:11:15 Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Mon, May 28, 2007 at 09:33:32PM +0530, Nitin Gupta wrote:
> > > On 5/28/07, Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >...
> > >
> >
On Monday 28 May 2007 16:52:07 Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> On Mon, 28 May 2007, Oliver Pinter wrote:
> > + open sound system
>
> yeah, that one's so obvious, i don't even list it anymore. :-) i'm
> assuming adrian's going to deal with that when the time comes.
>
> rday
And I thought OSS was being k
On Tuesday 29 May 2007 01:48:29 Nitin Gupta wrote:
> On 5/29/07, Bret Towe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 5/28/07, Nitin Gupta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Attached is tester code used for testing.
> > > (developed b
On Tuesday 29 May 2007 08:03:55 Nitin Gupta wrote:
> On 5/29/07, Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Tue, May 29, 2007 at 09:08:27AM +0100, Michael-Luke Jones wrote:
> > > On 28 May 2007, at 18:11, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > >> I have not seen any explanations:
> > >> - Why did the upstream a
On Tuesday 29 May 2007 09:33:51 Michael-Luke Jones wrote:
> On 29 May 2007, at 12:27, Satyam Sharma wrote:
> > Right, actually, zlib could be switched over to [using a common
> > directory].
> > Because zlib_deflate/ and zlib_inflate/ too share a private header
> > zutil.h which has unfortunately b
ip-the-checksum thing could actually be put into zlib proper. (?)
This *is* a good idea. If someone doesn't beat me to it I'll make sure I've
got the latest git and do up a patch that does this.
DRH
> > > So moving this header to a truly private location isn't possibl
On Tuesday 29 May 2007 01:58:43 Nitin Gupta wrote:
> On 5/29/07, Bret Towe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > tested this on ppc and its still good
> >
> > is there any reason to bother with a test on amd64?
> > if there is I might be able to get to it tonight
>
> Yes, this test is desired on 'take 6'
On Tuesday 29 May 2007 16:14:34 Daniel Hazelton wrote:
> On Tuesday 29 May 2007 01:58:43 Nitin Gupta wrote:
> > On 5/29/07, Bret Towe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > tested this on ppc and its still good
> > >
> > > is there any reason to bother with a t
All problems I was having with the test-bed code have been solved, and the
error I was running into was, as I suspected, in the code I used to fill the
buffer for the random-data test.
Results of running the new benchmark (version 6 of the benchmark, version 6
of 'tinyLZO'):
1 run averages:
I just noticed a bug in my testbed/benchmarking code. It's fixed, but I
decided to compare version 6 of the code against the *unsafe* decompressor
again. The results of the three runs I've put it through after changing it to
compare against the unsafe decompressor were startling. `Tiny's` compre
On Wednesday 30 May 2007 01:31:19 Mark Adler wrote:
> On May 29, 2007, at 8:15 AM, Satyam Sharma wrote:
> > skipping some checksum calculation if some
> > flag (PRESET_DICT) is absent from the input stream about to
> > be decompressed ...
>
> You don't need to dissect the header manually to look fo
On Wednesday 30 May 2007 19:02:28 Mark Adler wrote:
> On May 30, 2007, at 6:30 AM, Satyam Sharma wrote:
> > [1] For your reference, here is the user code in question:
>
> ...
>
> >if (srclen > 2 && !(data_in[1] & PRESET_DICT) &&
> > ((data_in[0] & 0x0f) == Z_DEFLATED) &&
> >
On Wednesday 30 May 2007 19:02:28 Mark Adler wrote:
> On May 30, 2007, at 6:30 AM, Satyam Sharma wrote:
> > [1] For your reference, here is the user code in question:
>
> ...
>
> >if (srclen > 2 && !(data_in[1] & PRESET_DICT) &&
> > ((data_in[0] & 0x0f) == Z_DEFLATED) &&
> >
On Friday 01 June 2007 02:48:59 Anand Jahagirdar wrote:
> On 5/31/07, Jens Axboe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, May 31 2007, Anand Jahagirdar wrote:
> > > 2) Printk message in my patch will definitely help Administrator/Root
> > > User to detect which particular user is trying fork bombing
On Friday 01 June 2007 03:30:20 Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 01 2007, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
> > On Friday 01 June 2007 02:48:59 Anand Jahagirdar wrote:
> > > On 5/31/07, Jens Axboe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > On Thu, May 31 2007, Anand Jahagirdar wrot
will never change - defined in RFC 1950)
Signed-off-by: Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
diff --git a/fs/jffs2/compr_zlib.c b/fs/jffs2/compr_zlib.c
index 2b87fcc..9f1b935 100644
--- a/fs/jffs2/compr_zlib.c
+++ b/fs/jffs2/compr_zlib.c
@@ -16,7 +16,6 @@
#include
#include
#include
-#in
that that constant - PRESET_DICT - was
part of the zlib standard and defined in RFC 1950. So, to remove the
dependency the simplest recourse is to replace PRESET_DICT with the 'magic
number' it represents.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
DRH
diff --git a/fs/jff
On Monday 14 May 2007 07:50:49 Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * William Lee Irwin III <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 12:31:20PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > please clarify - exactly what is a mistake? Thanks,
> >
> > The variability in ->fair_clock advancement rate was the mistake,
On Saturday 02 June 2007 20:21:13 Prakash Punnoor wrote:
> Daniel Hazelton wrote:
> > Signed-off-by: Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > DRH
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/jffs2/compr_zlib.c b/fs/jffs2/compr_zlib.c
> > index 2b87fcc..9f1b935 100644
No code besides zlib itself should depend on linux/zutil.h - the only item
JFFS2 uses from that header is a constant that is defined in RFC 1950 and
should never change. This patch mirrors the #define in zutil.h and removes
the #include.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Sunday 03 June 2007 19:01:21 Nix wrote:
> On 1 Jun 2007, Jens Axboe told this:
> > I think Anand is assuming that because syslog may coalesce identical
> > messages into "repeated foo times" in the messages file, that it's not a
> > dos. That is of course wrong.
>
> Not all syslog daemons do tha
On Monday 04 June 2007 10:58:41 Jiri Kosina wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Jun 2007, Anand Jahagirdar wrote:
> >I am forwarding one improved patch related with Fork Bombing
> > Attack. This patch prints a message (only once) which alerts
> > administrator/root user about fork bombing attack. I crea
On Monday 04 June 2007 11:36:18 Richard Purdie wrote:
> The following series contains several patches which I'm hoping could see
> some testing in -mm. They're all been seen before at some point. The LZO
> ones are important due to the dependent patches, the swap write failure
> ones have just fall
On Monday 04 June 2007 12:52:55 Richard Purdie wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-06-04 at 12:14 -0400, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
> > On Monday 04 June 2007 11:36:18 Richard Purdie wrote:
> > I have been involved in benchmarking and testing that stripped down and
> > kernel-style version
On Monday 04 June 2007 16:45:55 Richard Purdie wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-06-04 at 13:37 -0400, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
> > Yes - most of that work, IIRC, is related to the alignment issues that
> > Herr Oberhumer noted. As it stands, the alternative does work well for a
> >
On Thursday 07 June 2007 17:17:18 Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
> Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > The intel-rng printed a nice well formatted message when the port was
> > disabled. Someone then came along and blindly trashed it by screwing up a
> > trim down to 80 columns.
>
> Perhaps we should
On Thursday 07 June 2007 18:46:25 Jesper Juhl wrote:
> On 08/06/07, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thursday 07 June 2007 17:17:18 Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
> > > Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > > The intel-rng printed a nic
On Thursday 07 June 2007 18:37:45 Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
> Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Why? My consoles are *all* still 80x24 text mode. It's only if I decide
> > to monkey with the settings (and why fix what isn't broken?) or when I'm
>
On Sunday 10 June 2007 08:45:41 Jiri Kosina wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Jun 2007, Neil Brown wrote:
> > I presume the heirs of the dead people could change the license. And if
> > they have no heir, then there is no-one to sue for breach of copyright,
> > so I assume the copyright lapses.
>
> In most of t
On Sunday 10 June 2007 09:40:23 Alan Cox wrote:
> > But I think this is largely academic. You only need a fairly small
> > number of fairly significant contributors to say "no" and the rest of
> > the process would be pointless. And at last count, the number of
> > kernel people who were not keen
On Wednesday 27 June 2007 22:37:42 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 27, 2007, "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Behind a barrier is not on a medium customarily used for software
> > interchange, which 3a requires.
>
> Are you per chance claiming that you've never heard of anyone
> rece
On Thursday 28 June 2007 00:45:18 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 27, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Section 3 doesn't apply to this situation. However, other sections
> > do. They are distributing in line with the distribution requirement,
> &g
On Friday 29 June 2007 17:27:34 Rene Herman wrote:
> On 06/29/2007 11:05 PM, Bodo Eggert wrote:
> > Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Indeed if its public domain you may have almost no rights at all
> >> depending what you were given. Once you get the source code you can do
> >> stuff but I
On Saturday 30 June 2007 08:02:16 Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Willy Tarreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Jörg,
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 28, 2007 at 12:39:57PM +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > > David Woodhouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 2007-06-28 at 12:27 +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
>
On Friday 25 May 2007 09:38:24 Richard Purdie wrote:
> > > I am however still strongly of the opinion that we should just use the
> > > version in -mm (which is my latest version).
> >
> > Right, if the difference is anything >10%, code cleanup does lose
> > its attractiveness.
>
> Agreed, and I s
On Sunday 11 March 2007 16:35:50 Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> On Mar 11 2007 22:15, Cong WANG wrote:
> > Another question is about NULL. AFAIK, in user space, using NULL is
> > better than directly using 0 in C. In kernel, I know it used its own
> > NULL, which may be defined as ((void*)0), but it's _st
On Tuesday 17 April 2007 09:47:32 Tomasz Kłoczko wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Apr 2007, Theodore Tso wrote:
> [..]
>
> > Well, that was totally useless answer from the ZFS developers. What
> > he should have told you is to contact Sun management, since they are
> > the only ones who can decide whether or n
On Tuesday 17 April 2007 11:46:38 Tomasz Kłoczko wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Apr 2007, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 03:47:32PM +0200, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote:
> >> Realy can't or don't want (?)
> >> So who is responsible for potential changing Linux code licensing for
> >> allow if not i
On Tuesday 17 April 2007 15:58:09 Tomasz Kłoczko wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Apr 2007, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
> [..]
>
> >> Why on discussion about switching to GPL v3 Linux code this argument was
> >> allways taken as "piece of cake". Why in case switching to anot
On Tuesday 17 April 2007 18:12:17 David Lang wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Apr 2007, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
> > On Tuesday 17 April 2007 15:58:09 Tomasz Kłoczko wrote:
> >> On Tue, 17 Apr 2007, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
> >> [..]
> >>
> >>>> Why on discussion
On Thursday 03 May 2007 20:39:05 H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Kyle Moffett wrote:
> > Actually I think the real problem was that "KD_GRAPHICS" got overloaded
> > to mean "some userspace program is probably poking at the GPU in very
> > direct ways possibly including /dev/mem". As such it really isn't s
On Friday 04 May 2007 11:34:40 Jesse Barnes wrote:
> On Thursday, May 03, 2007, Antonino A. Daplas wrote:
> > On Thu, 2007-05-03 at 23:58 -0400, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
> > > On Thursday 03 May 2007 20:39:05 H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > > > Kyle Moffett wrote:
> > &
On Friday 27 April 2007 07:57:58 Marat Buharov wrote:
> On 4/27/07, Parav K Pandit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > DISCLAIMER:
> > This message (including attachment if any) is confidential and may be
> > privileged. Before opening attachments please check them for viruses and
> > defects. MindTree
On Friday 27 April 2007 21:44:48 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Saturday, 28 April 2007 03:12, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Sat, 28 Apr 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > It's doubly bad, because that idiocy has also infected s2ram. Again,
> > > > another thing that really makes no sense at all
In checking a "make allmodconfig" I noticed that the apm device
(arch/i386/kernel/apm.c) is still using the old pm_send_all setup - I know
the fix is to add suspend/resume hooks but the apm code hasn't been touched
since 2002 and isn't using the new device API (it doesn't even register,
AFAICT,
On Monday 30 April 2007 13:09:17 Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 10:11:21 +0100 Christoph Hellwig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > I've separated this out under a new subject because some style issues
> > that so far aren't documented explicitly are in doubt here, and Roland
> > wants and
On Sunday 16 September 2007 05:17:53 J.C. Roberts wrote:
> On Sunday 16 September 2007, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > J.C. Roberts wrote:
> > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-wireless&m=118857712529898&w=2
> >
> > Link with outdated info.
> >
> > > http://madwifi.org/browser/branches/ath5k
> >
> > Link with ou
On Sunday 16 September 2007 14:48:47 Can E. Acar wrote:
> On Sunday 16 September 2007 15:23:25 Daniel Hazelton wrote:
> > On Sunday 16 September 2007 05:17:53 J.C. Roberts wrote:
> >> On Sunday 16 September 2007, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> >> > J.C. Roberts wrote:
>
101 - 200 of 203 matches
Mail list logo
