Davide Libenzi wrote: > On Tue, 23 Jun 2009, Gregory Haskins wrote: > > >> Davide Libenzi wrote: >> >>> On Mon, 22 Jun 2009, Gregory Haskins wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> To be honest, I am not sure. I would guess its not a *huge* deal, >>>> though it was obviously enough of a concern to at least discuss it. I >>>> can definitely say that I think the other issues which are being fixed >>>> are substantially more important. >>>> >>>> >>> Ok then, will repost the revised patch later today. >>> >>> >> Ok sounds good. I did have a chance to take a closer look at your >> proposal for the key data, and I think it makes a lot of sense. Do you >> see it as a problem if we defer adding that? Or should we try to add >> that notion now? >> > > That would need to go eventually via mainline, after some discussion. But > yes, I believe that using the "key" as simple bitmask is a little > restrictive. > Ok. As long as you do not think we are somehow painting ourselves into a corner, lets just go with your original plan for the revised patch sans key changes. Thanks Davide, -Greg
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
