Re: New kernel-source-2.6.7 upload ?
On Thu, Aug 05, 2004 at 06:53:03AM -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
>> This will be necessary for major security issues, e.g. CAN-2004-0415,
>> anyway, so I think we'll be okay. The bit about latest kernel-source
>> is rather hopeful; if we take this as a precedent for architectures to
>> update generic kernel-source without updating other architectures'
>> kernel-images, then quite a bit can be done in the future.
On Thu, Aug 05, 2004 at 04:48:39PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> Not sure i fully follow you here.
There's a major security update pending, so we'll need to upload new
kernel images for everything in the universe in short order anyway.
On Thu, Aug 05, 2004 at 06:53:03AM -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
>> This would be great. Is it pending in the linux-ppc tree already?
On Thu, Aug 05, 2004 at 04:48:39PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> Well, the marvell-mm patch is pulled from the -mm tree, and Christoph said it
> will go upstream. I have no idea what the marvell-pegasos patch status is, i
> think Christoph will be able to respond better on this one, though i had the
> impression that he wanted to submit it upstream or something.
> Both the pegasos and the g4 errata patches should have gone upstream. I posted
> the pegasos patch on the linuxppc-dev list for review, and it was okeyed by
> benh, who also said he would submit it (altough directly to Marcello's tree).
> The same goes for the g4 errata patch, where Nico did a first version, and
> benh rewrote, and said he would commit.
> I have no idea what the exact status of those two is though, and i have the
> feeling that benh has had other stuff in his mind these past days, so maybe he
> didn't do the commit part of it, not sure. Also, i don't read the bitkeeper
> commit logs from Marcello's tree, so i cannot check if they where applied or
> not.
In Linux, no one ever really knows the exact status of their patches.
Anyhow, this sounds good, and like hch has taken care of getting things
upstream before I'd even looked once again. =)
-- wli
Reply to: