On 9/12/06, Pavel Machek <[email protected]> wrote:
> who talks about user <-> kernel interface level changes at the moment?! Eugeny?
Well, as far as I understood, both parties are ready to talk about _kernel_ interface at the moment. Let's try to look at it from this very point of view. Eugeny, please correct me if my understanding is wrong. Vitaly - 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:
- cpufreq terminally broken [was Re: community PM requirements/issues and PowerOP]
- From: Pavel Machek <[email protected]>
- Re: cpufreq terminally broken [was Re: community PM requirements/issues and PowerOP]
- From: Mark Gross <[email protected]>
- Re: cpufreq terminally broken [was Re: community PM requirements/issues and PowerOP]
- From: Pavel Machek <[email protected]>
- Re: [linux-pm] cpufreq terminally broken [was Re: community PM requirements/issues and PowerOP]
- From: "Vitaly Wool" <[email protected]>
- Re: [linux-pm] cpufreq terminally broken [was Re: community PM requirements/issues and PowerOP]
- From: Pavel Machek <[email protected]>
- cpufreq terminally broken [was Re: community PM requirements/issues and PowerOP]
- Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH] BODGE scsi misc module reference count checks with no MODULE_UNLOAD
- Next by Date: Re: 2.6.18-rc6-mm2
- Previous by thread: Re: [linux-pm] cpufreq terminally broken [was Re: community PM requirements/issues and PowerOP]
- Next by thread: Re: [linux-pm] cpufreq terminally broken [was Re: community PM requirements/issues and PowerOP]
- Index(es):
 |