On Friday 08 February 2008 05:31:48 Greg KH wrote:
On Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 09:42:22AM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
On Tuesday 05 February 2008 23:10:07 Greg KH wrote:
If these defaults are too small, why haven't we got upstream to take the change?: patches.suse/shmall-bigger
There is a change being worked on upstream (or rather mm) to do this more generically.
Ok, will we know when those changes get merged so we no longer have to take this patch?
Either .25 (I think it was already in -mm so it might be a late merge) or .26 I guess.
patches.fixes/tiocgdev
This is needed for init. There is unfortunately some philosophical disagreement on that one for mainline (I tried to submit it a long time ago). Maintainer is Werner Fink.
Probably would make sense to resubmit it -- i'm a little tired of always seeing the "kernel does not support TIOCGDEV" messages when I boot a mainline kernel.
I'll try to push it.
The problem was iirc Al Viro not happy about a dev_t being passed around. But we can probably argue it is a legacy interface by now (it has been in SUSE kernels for many many years)
patches.suse/crasher-26.diff
This one is a valuable debugging tool and should be probably submitted.
patches.suse/twofish-2.6 (We gotta be able to drop this one now, right? If not, why isn't it upstream?)
No we can't because that would break updates with encrypted file systems.
But there already is a twofish crypto module in the upstream kernel. Why are we adding another one?
They are not compatible on disk.
Shouldn't we use the one already there? If there are problems with the upstream one, we should fix it, not just drag in another new implementation.
The two modules just adapt cryptoloop to twofish, but do it in different ways. I'm not sure it would make that much sense to merge them. I guess it would make sense to submit this one upstream though. -Andi -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+help@opensuse.org