On Mon, 2006-03-13 at 15:19 -0500, Monty wrote: > > > On Thu, Mar 09, 2006 at 01:37:32PM -0500, Dave Jones wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 09, 2006 at 03:20:47PM +0000, William John Murray wrote: > > > Hello Dave J et al., > > > Late in the day, I would like to request a kernel patch. > > > The following patch: > > > > > > http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0602.2/0936.html > > > > > > would allow the AFS filesystem to be supported on FC5 > > > For us AFS-dependent users this would be a major plus. > > > > A better fix is for AFS to convert to using the new[1] module parameter syntax. > > > > Dave > > > > [1] Where 'new' is what, 3 years old now? > > You assume the poor user has control over what AFS code he gets to deploy. > > But more to the point, the patch I see is a bugfix... if a mechanism > doesn't work and no one one wants to fix it, why the hell is it there > anyway? because it's going away! And very soon. It's already a NOP. And Rusty sent a patch to kill it off for real; that's probably going to make 2.6.17. Its not like this hasn't been coming for the last 3 years as Dave says; it's like essential for 2.6 kernel modules to actually function anyway. > There are reasons the MIT AFS admins are pissed at RedHat, and this > sort of thing is one of them. Granted, they start out angry. Maybe they should bitch at the AFS people instead to make their module 2.6 ready? -- fedora-test-list mailing list fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list