| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0703090450160.30726@CPE00045a9c397f-CM001225dbafb6> Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2007 04:53:58 -0500 (EST) From: "Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@...dspring.com> To: Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de> cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: any thoughts yet on a "generic" ioctl.h? On Fri, 9 Mar 2007, Stefan Richter wrote: > Robert P. J. Day wrote: > > i asked about this a while back, but i still haven't heard a > > definitive response as to whether it's acceptable. > > Maybe you get response if you post a complete patch. that *was* the complete patch -- its purpose was simply to make asm-generic/ioctl.h general enough to allow arch-specific ioctl.h files to *subsequently* be simplified. there was no need to do *everything* in one step -- each simplification could be submitted as a separate arch-specific patch, as many things are. i was more asking about the *philosophy* of that patch, and whether there were any obvious objections. rday -- ======================================================================== Robert P. J. Day Linux Consulting, Training and Annoying Kernel Pedantry Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA http://fsdev.net/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page ======================================================================== - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists