* Eric W. Biederman <[email protected]> wrote:
> I'm not arguing against an operations based approach. I'm arguing for
> simple obviously correct steps, and not throwing the baby out with the
> bath water.
>
> My patches should be a precursor to an operations based approach
> because they are simple step from where we are now.
yeah. I'd say your approach is to go from A to B:
[A] -----------------------------------------------------> [B]
|
[C]
while there might be some other arguments that "no, lets go to C
instead", i say lets not throw away the already implemented and already
working and nicely layered [A]->[B] transition, just because there's an
argument whether the end result should be 'B' or 'C'. Unless someone who
wants to see 'C' produces a patchset that walks the whole way i dont see
any reason to not go with your patchset. It clearly removes alot of
cruft.
Acked-by: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
