linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Add a new VT mode which is like VT_PROCESS but doesn't require a VT

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20100219141829.3e6c0d8c@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Date:	Fri, 19 Feb 2010 14:18:29 +0000
From:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To:	"Ari G. Entlich" <atrigent@....neu.edu>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add a new VT mode which is like VT_PROCESS but doesn't
 require a VT_RELDISP ioctl call

> Sorry if I was unclear - I wasn't talking about changing the value, I was
> just saying that VT_ACKACQ and VT_PROCESS_AUTO are used in different
> contexts, so it shouldn't matter that they have the same value. One thing
> that probably would be nice though would be to move the VT_ACKACQ define
> to a different place in vt.h (probably after the VT_RELDISP define).

That would just as well. It just needs to be obvious for future
maintainers that the overlap doesn't matter
--
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/