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]