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." --
| H. Peter Anvin | Re: [RFC 00/15] x86_64: Optimize percpu accesses |
| Linus Torvalds | Linux 2.6.27-rc5 |
| Ingo Molnar | [announce] "kill the Big Kernel Lock (BKL)" tree |
| Greg KH | Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 |
git: | |
| 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) |
| Ben Hutchings | Re: [GIT]: Networking |
| Jarek Poplawski | [PATCH iproute2] Re: HTB accuracy for high speed |
