>
> While i dont think that a 2.0.39 with just this fix is a good idea (i
> agree with Alan Cox that only external vulnerabilities should be a
> reason for a new version) i believe some sort of revision of the 2.0.X
> kernels once in a while is a good idea. I myself have in production
> environment four 2.0.X machines, but i am very forward minded, so
> i can only guess how many exist in the rest of the world with
> people more conservative than me. Of course the important thing
> here is that such work could only be implemented under strict rules
> and guidance from Alan Cox, but always releasing him and others
> from the dirty work that is understandably frowned upon by them.
My idea isn't to ONLY fix this one, but also fixup some other things.
However, I'll probably drop a pre-patch 1 in some direction soon (I guess
that'd be to Alan?), and that one will probably only contain this fix
together with some documentation updates and maybe some other small
things.
I will release more pre-patches as my reviewing of the patch-log/bug-log
Alan sent me progresses.
> So, if things go that way, i am willing to give my help to David
> Weinehall and others.
Thanks!
/David
_ _
// David Weinehall <tao@acc.umu.se> /> Northern lights wander \\
// Project MCA Linux hacker // Dance across the winter sky //
\> http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/ </ Full colour fire </
-
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/