[ Tuesday, February 8, 2000 ] Abramo Bagnara wrote:
> Without any official answer, with no objections and the enthusiastic
> welcome of LWN, I'm a bit embarassed about what to do now.
>
> I'm unable to understand if a missing answer need to be interpreted as a
> silent refusal, as an invitation to write down the patch or as a kick in
> the ass ;-)
>
> Or perhaps only an invitation to wait some time...
>
> Are there some silently refused proposal veteran that offer me a
> shoulder to cry over or some consolation words? ;-)
>
> Linus, don't show me a rock heart... how is it possible to not answer to
> a crying man?
FWIW, based on these additions to file_operations I had made a patch
to make all file_operations initializations into named initializers
(2 patches, one gcc and one c99) so that you could add the readv/writev
wherever you wanted, not forced to append past lock (which I hate since
so many of these struct types are now well past a single cache line)
If it makes you feel any better, it's been equally ignored :) I've
made 3 versions, against .41-pre2, .41, and .42
Perl script:
http://sublogic.com/patches/c99_pl.txt
gcc syntax patch:
http://sublogic.com/patches/file_operations-2.3.42-gcc.patch
167 files changed, 980 insertions, 2416 deletions
c99 syntax patch:
http://sublogic.com/patches/file_operations-2.3.42-c99.patch
182 files changed, 1061 insertions, 2497 deletions
(more since it takes a little over a dozen instances from gcc -> c99)
James
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Feb 15 2000 - 21:00:14 EST