On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 02:44:46PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:Jeff, I think you've said this before, but let me try to help you cut to the chase. You are willing to *implement* firmware-in-the-module for request_firmware(), but you want a commitment that David Woodhouse and Linus will accept such a patch before you go off and write it. Is that right? If so, may I suggest you start implementing, instead of sending e-mails? For all the time people have spent arguing about it, maybe it could have been implemented already. Once it has been implemented, do you have any further objections aka ideas about how request_firmware() could be improved? - Ted (who is hoping we can guide this thread onto slightly more productive avenues) --
| Ian Campbell | Re: [PATCH] x86: Construct 32 bit boot time page tables in native format. |
| Greg Kroah-Hartman | [PATCH 001/196] Chinese: Add the known_regression URI to the HOWTO |
| Justin Piszcz | Linux Software RAID 5 Performance Optimizations: 2.6.19.1: (211MB/s read & 195... |
| Alan | Re: [RFC] Heads up on sys_fallocate() |
| Matthias Scheler | Re: HEADS UP: timecounters (branch simonb-timecounters) merged into -current |
| David Laight | long usernames |
| Quentin Garnier | Re: Understanding foo_open, foo_read, etc. |
| Jared D. McNeill | Breaking binary compatibility for /dev/joy |
git: | |
| Jarek Poplawski | [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 0/37] dccp: Feature negotiation - last call for comments |
| David Miller | [GIT]: Networking |
| Natalie Protasevich | [BUG] New Kernel Bugs |
