On Sun, 4 Jun 2006 17:02:18 -0700
"Randy.Dunlap" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > utsname virtualisation. This doesn't seem very pointful as a standalone
> > thing. That's a general problem with infrastructural work for a very
> > large new feature.
> >
> > So probably I'll continue to babysit these patches, unless someone can
> > identify a decent reason why mainline needs this work.
>
> Not a strong argument for mainline, but I have a patch to make
> <hostname> larger (up to 255 bytes, per POSIX).
> http://www.xenotime.net/linux/patches/hostname-2617-rc5b.patch
My immediate reaction to that was to tell posix to go take a hike. I mean,
sheesh.
> I can either update my hostname patch against mm/utsname.. or not.
> But I don't really want to see some/any patch blocked due to a patch
> in -mm being borderline "pointful," so how do we deal with this?
Well first we need to work out if there's any vague reason why we need to
mucky up our kernel by implementing this dopey spec. If there is such a
reason then I guess I drop all the ustname patches and ask that they be
redone. They're a bit straggly and a refactoring/rechanngelogging wouldn't
hurt.
-
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]
