From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 09:33:59 +1100 From: David Gibson To: Olof Johansson Subject: Re: Raising list size limit Message-ID: <20071218223359.GA12254@localhost.localdomain> References: <20071218143627.94f76142.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <20071218060105.368f0bd4@zod.rchland.ibm.com> <2420E261-C9AB-49B8-8F99-C24C7A865044@kernel.crashing.org> <20071218161208.GA7495@lixom.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20071218161208.GA7495@lixom.net> Cc: Stephen Rothwell , ppc-dev List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Tue, Dec 18, 2007 at 10:12:08AM -0600, Olof Johansson wrote: > On Tue, Dec 18, 2007 at 09:54:15AM -0600, Kumar Gala wrote: > > > > On Dec 18, 2007, at 6:01 AM, Josh Boyer wrote: > > > > > On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 14:36:27 +1100 > > > Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > > > > >> Hi, > > >> > > >> I am considering raising the limit on the size of postings to > > >> 400k. Does > > >> anyone have a real problem with this? Limiting message size was > > >> done to > > >> limit the damage of larges spams (and we don;t get very many of > > >> those on > > >> the list) and to ease the pain for people downloading emails over a > > >> slow > > >> (like dialup) link (and are there many of those left?). > > > > > > Fine by me! > > > > Do you really have patches that are 400k? > > I'm guessing stuff such as "dtc merge" could reach those sizes? dtc merge was 224k, if it had stayed together with the libfdt merge it would have been a about 300k. -- David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_ | _way_ _around_! http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson