On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 01:41:51PM +0800, Federico Sevilla III wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 06, 2003 at 09:58:10PM -0500, Steve Lord wrote:
> > The globals stuff has been reworked again - to avoid shooting
> > ourselves in the foot like this in the future. Not a lot of other
> > differences I think.
>
> Please pardon my confusion.
>
> Does this mean that the only major difference between the respun split
> patches and the initial split patches plus the xfs_globals.c patch
> posted by Ethan Benson on 2003-06-28 09:23 UTC [1] is that you cleaned
> things up to prevent you from comitting the same mistake next time?
pretty much, there doesn't seem to be any functional difference
between my version of the patch (the first fix commited by sandeen)
and the current one which is simply a more C99 correct
initialization.
> Or is the combination of the original split patches and the
> xfs_globals.c patch not enough, so people like me who use that
> combination should schedule a kernel upgrade using the respun patches
> ASAP?
i don't recall seeing any other commits which looked very interesting.
> Thank you very much for helping me decide wether an upgrade will be
> necessary or not.
>
> --> Jijo
>
> [1] http://marc.free.net.ph/message/20030628.092344.7eff097d.html
>
> --
> Federico Sevilla III : http://jijo.free.net.ph : When we speak of free
> Network Administrator : The Leather Collection, Inc. : software we refer to
> GnuPG Key ID : 0x93B746BE : freedom, not price.
>
--
Ethan Benson
http://www.alaska.net/~erbenson/
pgpATXXUPdAQ2.pgp
Description: PGP signature
|