On Sun, 2008-05-25 at 15:18 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:Yeah, and only that makes sense, if you ask me. And as you said in the other mail, adding a module name disambiguation policy in userspace would mean that two different modules would be allowed to both request the firmware key "foobar" and not have a problem, while it would be pretty hard to support it with the built-in firmware option. johannes
| Linus Torvalds | Linux 2.6.21 |
| Greg Kroah-Hartman | [PATCH 002/196] Chinese: rephrase English introduction in HOWTO |
| Con Kolivas | Re: [PATCH][RSDL-mm 0/7] RSDL cpu scheduler for 2.6.21-rc3-mm2 |
| Andrew Morton | echo mem > /sys/power/state |
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) |
| David Miller | Re: [GIT]: Networking |
| Michael S. Tsirkin | Re: [RFC PATCH v2 03/19] vbus: add connection-client helper infrastructure |
