Jeff King wrote:Yes, of course. But even then, it's merely a formal definition, the thing I'm after now is if there is any code that actually relies on that formal definition. That would be the code to review and perhaps adapt in order to make it support the sideport-parents without hurting the old definition. Will it? Can you give me one example where it would find the wrong one? That, of course, is unacceptable. It either is seemless and supports both uses transparently, or it has to be done (if at all) using a separate link (not one of the normal parents) indeed. Quite. Optional, indeed, and sometimes quite useful. I will, thanks. -- Sincerely, Stephen R. van den Berg. "The future is here, it's just not widely distributed yet." -- William Gibson -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
| Bart Van Assche | Integration of SCST in the mainstream Linux kernel |
| Michael Smith | gettimeofday() jumping into the future |
| Jan Engelhardt | intel iommu (Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23) |
| David Miller | Slow DOWN, please!!! |
| Alexey Dobriyan | Re: [GIT]: Networking |
| Jarek Poplawski | [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 27/37] dccp: Integration of dynamic feature activation - part 2 (server side) |
| Frans Pop | svc: failed to register lockdv1 RPC service (errno 97). |
git: | |
| Sander | 'struct task_struct' has no member named 'mems_allowed' (was: Re: 2.6.20-rc4-mm1) |
