Re: [PATCH] abstract out bits of ldt.c

On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 11:23:18AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> mine are mostly technical arguments. I just also wanted to vent away 
> this slowly gathering false notion of building 'interoperability', while 
> the only apparent goal seems to be to maximize benefits to the closed 
> hypervisors, while allowing them to not open up their code.

...

I agree completely with the points you make here, but can't find the mail
you are replying to.  Where is it coming from?

-
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/

---

• References:
  • [PATCH] abstract out bits of ldt.c
    • From: "Martin J. Bligh" <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH] abstract out bits of ldt.c
    • From: Chris Wright <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH] abstract out bits of ldt.c
    • From: "Martin J. Bligh" <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH] abstract out bits of ldt.c
    • From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH] abstract out bits of ldt.c
    • From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH] abstract out bits of ldt.c
• Next by Date: Re: [PATCH -mm] removes pci_find_device from i6300esb.c
• Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH] abstract out bits of ldt.c
• Next by thread: Re: [PATCH] abstract out bits of ldt.c
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]