Am 25.10.2007 00:31 schrieb Adrian Bunk: > Generally, the goal is to get external modules included into the kernel. > [...] even though it might sound harsh breaking > external modules and thereby making people aware that their code should > get into the kernel is IMHO a positive point. This argument seems to start from the assumption that any externally maintained kernel code *can* get into the kernel, which doesn't stand up to reality. Once you admit that there is code which, for very good reasons, won't ever be accepted into the mainline kernel tree, what you are saying amounts to: "Code that isn't fit to be included in the mainline kernel isn't fit to exist at all." I'm not sure I can agree with that. -- Tilman Schmidt E-Mail: [email protected] Bonn, Germany Diese Nachricht besteht zu 100% aus wiederverwerteten Bits. Ungeöffnet mindestens haltbar bis: (siehe Rückseite)
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Re: LSM conversion to static interface
- From: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
- Re: LSM conversion to static interface
- From: Jan Engelhardt <[email protected]>
- Re: LSM conversion to static interface
- From: James Morris <[email protected]>
- Re: LSM conversion to static interface [revert patch]
- From: Arjan van de Ven <[email protected]>
- Re: LSM conversion to static interface [revert patch]
- From: Chris Wright <[email protected]>
- Re: LSM conversion to static interface [revert patch]
- From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <[email protected]>
- Re: LSM conversion to static interface [revert patch]
- From: Arjan van de Ven <[email protected]>
- Linux Security *Module* Framework (Was: LSM conversion to static interface
- From: "Simon Arlott" <[email protected]>
- Re: Linux Security *Module* Framework (Was: LSM conversion to static interface
- From: Adrian Bunk <[email protected]>
- Re: Linux Security *Module* Framework (Was: LSM conversion to static interface)
- From: Simon Arlott <[email protected]>
- Re: Linux Security *Module* Framework (Was: LSM conversion to static interface)
- From: Adrian Bunk <[email protected]>
- Re: LSM conversion to static interface
- Prev by Date: [PATCH] x86: fix pci-gart failure handling
- Next by Date: Re: [PATCH 01/31] Add an ERR_CAST() macro to complement ERR_PTR and co. [try #5]
- Previous by thread: Re: Linux Security *Module* Framework (Was: LSM conversion to static interface)
- Next by thread: Re: Linux Security *Module* Framework (Was: LSM conversion to static interface)
- Index(es):
 |