On Fri, May 02, 2008 at 10:34:07AM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:Do we really need to support kernels compiled with the apparmour patch applied but not enabled? That would be a custom kernel build, and I get the impression that people Just Don't Do That -- if they want a newer kernel, they fetch one from kernel.org. Maybe I'm wrong though. -- Intel are signing my paycheques ... these opinions are still mine "Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this operating system, but compare it to ours. We can't possibly take such a retrograde step." --
| Greg Kroah-Hartman | [PATCH 027/196] tifm: Convert from class_device to device for TI flash media |
| Kok, Auke | Re: Linux 2.6.21-rc1 |
| Trent Piepho | Re: [PATCH] [POWERPC] Improve (in|out)_beXX() asm code |
| Greg KH | Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 |
git: | |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 27/37] dccp: Integration of dynamic feature activation - part 2 (server side) |
| Arjan van de Ven | Re: [GIT]: Networking |
| Ingo Molnar | Re: [PATCH 01/10] x86: add Kconfig entry for DMA-API debugging |
| Jarek Poplawski | [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
