On Thursday 08 July 2010, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > I see. [PATCH 16/18] ( http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/7/7/258 ) contains a line > > security/tomoyo/common.c | 1 + > > but no change in the patch. Patch was too large? Yes, the total patch is almost 200kb, which I considered too large. I explained this in the changelog. In retrospect, I probably should have sent it all anyway, because the changelog is already very long and a few other people did not realize this either because they did only read the patch but not the changelog. As I mentioned to Boaz Harrosh, the full patch is available on http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/arnd/bkl.git;a=patch;h=dc731e01d2a08eb66ae08c226c97aa0cb8cf7b7f and I'll send it out completely if I send out the series again. I first want to make sure we have consensus on the semantic patch though. In particular, I want to be sure everyone agrees on the following questions: - should we kill default_llseek in favour of a more generic generic_file_llseek that also covers special files? - if not, should default_llseek get renamed to something else? - should I bother adding .llseek=no_llseek if we make that the default in the next step anyway? - should I drop all the automatically generated comments? - Do I need to split this patch up into per-maintainer chunks and send them through the individual trees, or do we just apply the semantic patch treewide at the end of the merge window? Arnd -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
