> On Mon, 2 Dec 2002, Bill Davidsen wrote:
> | No. I have pretty much assumed that there is no interest in having this
> | work. The modules are broken to the point where either the author or
> | someone who has documentation on how they should work will have to fix
> | them. Clearly the policy of "if you want your change in the kernel you
> | have to fix what it breaks" is dead.
>
> This is not the borked-modules problem; it's different.
I misread, I thought it came about when changes for module interface were
applied.
> | I posted that to the list, if it didn't make it for any reason I can't
> | easily recreate it, the machine has been converted to BSD, the 2.5 work is
> | on a removable drive which is removed, since we can't make any progress
> | with it for the moment.
>
> whatever. Adrian Bunk & Jeff Garzik have now posted patches for it.
Yes, I've noted my thanks earlier, particularly for some info on the
underlying cause, which will be useful when I see that problem again.
-- bill davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com> CTO, TMR Associates, Inc Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979.- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/