Re: [patch] xbow.c kmalloc fixes

From: David Mosberger <>
Date: 2003-10-21 04:25:02
>>>>> On 20 Oct 2003 04:46:03 -0400, Jes Sorensen <> said:

>>>>> "David" == David Mosberger <> writes:
  David> So what should be done about these SN2 cleanups?  I don't
  David> want to accept dozens of small "fixes" (which really are
  David> mostly cleanups) as that would defeat the idea of the
  David> code-fixes-only decree.  On the other hand, I really would
  David> like to see the SN2 code cleaned up so we actually have a
  David> sane base to do bug fixes on top of.

  Jes> I am in two minds over this, I agree that getting the sn2 code
  Jes> cleaned up is a big win and a lot of the changes like those I
  Jes> posted are clearly bug fixes (not checking kmalloc returns
  Jes> should always be fixed). However having a big patch will take
  Jes> time and means we will have to operate with an internal tree
  Jes> until we get the whole thing into shape to push, but the
  Jes> seperate tree is one of the things we have been trying to avoid
  Jes> with 2.6. What came first, the chicken or the soft boiled egg
  Jes> ;-(

The issue may be moot already.  Now that test8 is out, I'm not sure
Andrew/Linus would still accept large at all patches anymore.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Received on Mon Oct 20 14:30:29 2003

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2005-08-02 09:20:19 EST