Re: [PATCH] [request for inclusion] Realtime LSM

Andreas Steinmetz
2005-01-05T01:38:11Z

Lee Revell wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-01-04 at 18:20 +0000, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>
>>On Tue, Jan 04, 2005 at 01:16:54PM -0500, Lee Revell wrote:
>>
>>>Got a patch? Code talks, BS walks. This is working perfectly, right
>>>now, and is being used by thousands of Linux ausio users.
>>
>>Which still doesn't mean it's the right design. And no, I don't need the
>>feature so I won't write it. If you want a certain feature it's up to
>>you to implement it in a way that's considered mergeable.
>>
>
>
> Please specify what's wrong with it. So far all your objection amounts
> to is "I don't like it".
>
> If you do have anything other that your opinion to back up your
> assertion that it's a bad design, you should have raised it months ago
> when this was first posted. Now that we have it to a mergeable state
> (as far as the people who worked on it are concerned), you want to pop
> up and say "Nope, bad design"?

Let me remind you all that according to lkml history hch has always been
biased and objecting to anything related to lsm. Nobody can take hch's
opinion here as objective. I would even go so far that when things are
related to lsm(s) he's just tro...
--
Andreas Steinmetz SPAMmers use robotrap@domdv.de