Hey! What about interceptors?

Alexander Maryanchick (Sasha@GDev.msk.ru)
Tue, 29 Jun 1999 19:38:55 +0400

Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: Chris Smith: "Re: fsck is dead (was: Some very thought-provoking ...)"
Previous message: Lou Grinzo: "File conglomerations"
Next in thread: Ian D Romanick: "Re: [PATCH] *(int*)0 = 0 & variations"
Reply: Ian D Romanick: "Re: [PATCH] *(int*)0 = 0 & variations"
Reply: Jamie Lokier: "Re: [PATCH] *(int*)0 = 0 & variations"
Maybe reply: Khimenko Victor: "Re: Hey! What about interceptors?"

Excuse me,
I recently posted a patch ("Interceptors 0.3")
and recieved no response :-(.

As I can understand, the patch is rejected.
But what is the reason?
Is the patch not needed? Or it contains significant bugs?
Or more functionality is required? Or it simply was not recieved?

Please do not ignore this message. This is the very practical question for
me.
Am I allowed to continue the improving of the patch?
What are the rules for such situations? (This is my first patch and I am
disoriented).

Thanks.
Alexander.

-
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/

Next message: Chris Smith: "Re: fsck is dead (was: Some very thought-provoking ...)"
Previous message: Lou Grinzo: "File conglomerations"
Next in thread: Ian D Romanick: "Re: [PATCH] *(int*)0 = 0 & variations"
Reply: Ian D Romanick: "Re: [PATCH] *(int*)0 = 0 & variations"
Reply: Jamie Lokier: "Re: [PATCH] *(int*)0 = 0 & variations"
Maybe reply: Khimenko Victor: "Re: Hey! What about interceptors?"