On Mon, 2007-12-03 at 18:02 +0100, Rene Herman wrote:Rene - Thanks for the follow up - from my perspective now that I know that the condition that caused the warning messages has been with us for some time, and that previously the messages were suppressed it really does not make that much difference to me if the warnings are reverted or not. So I guess that I vote for doing whatever is best for the developer. After all they are the ones doing the heavy lifting. If the warning message is able to provide some insight into the problem so much the better. At this point my goal is just to learn enough to be an asset as a tester instead of a net loss (defined as someone whose efforts cost the team more man-hours than their contribution is worth) Chris --
| Tarkan Erimer | Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 |
| Nigel Cunningham | Re: [PATCH] Remove process freezer from suspend to RAM pathway |
| Paul Mundt | Re: 2.6.22-rc4-mm2 |
| Greg Kroah-Hartman | [PATCH 001/196] Chinese: Add the known_regression URI to the HOWTO |
git: | |
| Arjan van de Ven | Re: [GIT]: Networking |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 27/37] dccp: Integration of dynamic feature activation - part 2 (server side) |
| Jarek Poplawski | Re: [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
| Natalie Protasevich | [BUG] New Kernel Bugs |
