Now there's a response I can live with. It seems like a bug fix to me,
considering that I managed to trash a few processes by accidentally writing
to a .so, but whatever you say goes...
Honestly, I had my eye on 2.0.36, because I'm not brave enough (don't have an
expendable computer) to be a 2.1.x user. So obviously I was a few levels
beyond misunderstanding "CodeFreeze" :) Is it possible for an outsider to
make useful contributions without actually being on the bleeding edge?
>
>So please continue to work on the F patch, but if you grow impatient you
I'll just save it away for later, and adapt it to 2.2.x when that gets here.
>have only yourself to blame. I certainly agree that there is little reason
>for all this discussion.
Well, at least we ended up educating some people on how rename() works.
There is one thing I keep mentioning, and nobody says anything about it, that
may still be worthy of being looked at for 2.0.36: Why doesn't arch/sparc/'s
sys_mmap ignore MAP_DENYWRITE like the others? Will the mmap("/etc/utmp",
MAP_DENYWRITE) annoyance work on sparc, or is there some other sparc magic
going on that makes it different?
-- Alan Curry- 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.altern.org/andrebalsa/doc/lkml-faq.html