On Gwe, 2005-04-29 at 05:20, Greg KH wrote: > > Ok thats the bit I needed to know > > So, do you still object to this patch being accepted? Switched to CAP_SYS_RAWIO I don't. Its the wrong answer long term I suspect but its definitely a good answer for now. Alan - 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/
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- [00/07] -stable review
- From: Greg KH <[email protected]>
- [06/07] [PATCH] SCSI tape security: require CAP_ADMIN for SG_IO etc.
- From: Greg KH <[email protected]>
- Re: [06/07] [PATCH] SCSI tape security: require CAP_ADMIN for SG_IO etc.
- From: Alan Cox <[email protected]>
- Re: [06/07] [PATCH] SCSI tape security: require CAP_ADMIN for SG_IO etc.
- From: Kai Makisara <[email protected]>
- Re: [06/07] [PATCH] SCSI tape security: require CAP_ADMIN for SG_IO etc.
- From: Alan Cox <[email protected]>
- Re: [06/07] [PATCH] SCSI tape security: require CAP_ADMIN for SG_IO etc.
- From: Greg KH <[email protected]>
- [00/07] -stable review
- Prev by Date: Re: Mercurial 0.4b vs git patchbomb benchmark
- Next by Date: Spurious disk change detections interferes with disk access
- Previous by thread: Re: [06/07] [PATCH] SCSI tape security: require CAP_ADMIN for SG_IO etc.
- Next by thread: Re: [06/07] [PATCH] SCSI tape security: require CAP_ADMIN for SG_IO etc.
- Index(es):
 |