Re: Congrats Marcelo,

Re: Congrats Marcelo,

[Andries.Brouwer]

Marcelo writes:

> I think its not possible to distribute crypto stuff in the stock kernel.
> Am I wrong?

Some years ago I submitted a patch to include the loop device
in the default kernel, and that generated a lot of mail explaining
why this would lead to terrible problems. But Linus took the patch
and I have not heard of political problems.

Nobody knows for sure, and the rules are unclear, but for the time
being maybe it suffices to judge submissions on technical merit,
without worrying too much about politics.

Andries

Re: Congrats Marcelo,

[Mike Fedyk]

On Fri, Mar 01, 2002 at 09:30:01AM +0000, Andries.Brouwer@cwi.nl wrote:
> Marcelo writes:
> 
> > I think its not possible to distribute crypto stuff in the stock kernel.
> > Am I wrong?
> 
> Some years ago I submitted a patch to include the loop device
> in the default kernel, and that generated a lot of mail explaining
> why this would lead to terrible problems. But Linus took the patch
> and I have not heard of political problems.
> 
> Nobody knows for sure, and the rules are unclear, but for the time
> being maybe it suffices to judge submissions on technical merit,
> without worrying too much about politics.
> 

Linus may have taken the loop device, but he doesn't have any encryption in
there AFAIK...

RE: Congrats Marcelo,

[Dennis, Jim]

 Hi Stephen.  Seen M lately?

> Hi,

> FYI crypto is included in (Net|Free|Open)BSD source releases and I don't
> believe it is an issue for them.

> skd

 OpenBSD is maintained in Canada.  IIRC the FreeBSD IPSec patches started in

 Japan, but I guess they have been merged into the mainstream.  I don't know
 about NetBSD.

 However, the point is well taken.  If our *BSD freeware OS' have been
successfully
 shipping with IPSec and other advanced crypto, from the U.S. outbound than
it's a
 precedent we may be able to follow.  Also the Debian project seems to be
moving in 
 that direction (including crypto in their mainstream distro).  

 Obviously I opened a can of worms with my question.  I just wanted to know
when
 the unofficial patches would be sync with 2.4.18 (so I could fetch and
apply them
 without having to wrangle addition .rej files; since I a number of local
patches to 
 apply and wrangle *their* rejects is enough work already).

 Clearly there's alot of pent up demand to include more stuff in the
mainstream.  
 I can understand Marcelo's conservatism (and Linus').  So the various
branch trees
 that are popping up.  This latest one by Jorg Prante (sorry of the the lack
of 
 proper diacriticals) is a nice base, with XFS, rmap, Ingo's O(1) scheduler,
KLIPS
 and patch-int, and quite a few others.  It isn't as outrageous as FOLK and
it uses
 the GR (getrewted) patches rather than LIDS.  However, as I say, it's a
nice base
 for someone who wants to be a few steps off the mainstream.


> On Thu, Feb 28, 2002 at 06:52:25PM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Feb 2002, Dennis, Jim wrote:
>> Marcelo,
>> 
>>  Contratulations on your first "official" kernel release.  It seems to
>> have gone
>>  well (except for some complaints on slashdot about -rc4 SPARC patches
>> missing from
>>  the patch, but apparently in the full tarball).
>> 
>>  Now I need to know about the status of several unofficial patches:
>> 
>> 	XFS
 
> Want to see stable in -ac first.
 
>> 	LVM
 
> Its on 2.4 already.
 
>> 	i2c
>> 	Crypto
>> 	FreeS/WAN KLIPS
>> 	LIDS
 
> I think its not possible to distribute crypto stuff in the stock kernel.
 
> Am I wrong? 
 
>> 	rmap
 
> I need to see it running in production for more time.
 
>>  Marcelo, there were some i2c updates included in the lmsensors package,
>> have they
>>  submitted those to you for integration into 2.4.19?
 
> Nope. I could well integrate lm_sensors in the future.
 

Re: Congrats Marcelo,

[David Ford]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 391 bytes --]

In regards to crypto code in the kernel, read the legal advise given to 
Debian: http://www.debian.org/legal/cryptoinmain

Sounds pretty simple and basically we are free to put crypto into code 
released from the US, we just need to make the proper notification.

Same steps that were taken last year for the LK mirrors, all of which 
should post a summary statement to this effect.

David


[-- Attachment #2: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature --]
[-- Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature, Size: 3254 bytes --]

Re: Congrats Marcelo,

[Florian Weimer]

"Dennis, Jim" <jdennis@snapserver.com> writes:

>> FYI crypto is included in (Net|Free|Open)BSD source releases and I don't
>> believe it is an issue for them.
>
>> skd
>
>  OpenBSD is maintained in Canada.

Does it really matter?

When most people download something from ftp.openbsd.com, the packets
travel through US territory. ;-)

-- 
Florian Weimer 	                  Weimer@CERT.Uni-Stuttgart.DE
University of Stuttgart           http://CERT.Uni-Stuttgart.DE/people/fw/
RUS-CERT                          +49-711-685-5973/fax +49-711-685-5898

Congrats Marcelo,

[Dennis, Jim]

Marcelo,

 Contratulations on your first "official" kernel release.  It seems to have
gone
 well (except for some complaints on slashdot about -rc4 SPARC patches
missing from
 the patch, but apparently in the full tarball).

 Now I need to know about the status of several unofficial patches:

	XFS
	LVM
	i2c
	Crypto
	FreeS/WAN KLIPS
	LIDS
	rmap


 Shawn was very helpful regarding the XFS+rmap patches --- though I've been
having 
 some trouble with compiling kernels out of that in some configurations
(I'll try to 
 isolate those and submit a coherent bug report, if I can.  Shawn, are you
going to 
 update your set of XFS+rmap patches soon?

 Marcelo, there were some i2c updates included in the lmsensors package,
have they
 submitted those to you for integration into 2.4.19?

(As for the patch-int, that seems to apply with only a couple minor rejects,
to the
 top level Makefile, and Documentation/Configure.help; so that's not a
problem --- 
 beside I want KLIPS, LIDS and patch-int for home, not for work.)

 

Re: Congrats Marcelo,

[H. Peter Anvin]

Followup to:  <2D0AFEFEE711D611923E009027D39F2B153AD4@cdserv.meridian-data.com>
By author:    "Dennis, Jim" <jdennis@snapserver.com>
In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
> 
>  Contratulations on your first "official" kernel release.
> 

Third, actually.  2.4.16 .17 .18 were all Marcelo.

	-hpa
-- 
<hpa@transmeta.com> at work, <hpa@zytor.com> in private!
"Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot."
http://www.zytor.com/~hpa/puzzle.txt	<amsp@zytor.com>

Re: Congrats Marcelo,

[Andreas Dilger]

On Feb 26, 2002  12:38 -0800, Dennis, Jim wrote:
>  Now I need to know about the status of several unofficial patches:

While my word is by no means official, my general understanding is:

> 	XFS

Not for 2.4 - just too many changes to the core kernel code.

> 	LVM

Heinz already submitted updates for LVM.

> 	i2c
> 	Crypto
> 	FreeS/WAN KLIPS
> 	LIDS

No idea.

> 	rmap

I don't think Rik has even asked for this to be included yet, as he
still has some known issues to be worked out.

In any case, Marcelo (probably) isn't out hunting for new patches to
add (especially after Alan's email about 78 patches he sent yesterday).
If the maintainers feel their code is ready and ask Marcelo to include
it, you will probably read about it here first.

Cheers, Andreas
--
Andreas Dilger
http://sourceforge.net/projects/ext2resize/
http://www-mddsp.enel.ucalgary.ca/People/adilger/

Re: Congrats Marcelo,

[Steve Lord]

On Tue, 2002-02-26 at 15:06, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> On Feb 26, 2002  12:38 -0800, Dennis, Jim wrote:
> >  Now I need to know about the status of several unofficial patches:
> 
> While my word is by no means official, my general understanding is:
> 
> > 	XFS
> 
> Not for 2.4 - just too many changes to the core kernel code.

Someone has got to kill this assumption people have about XFS, it
makes much smaller changes than some things which have gone in,
the odd VM rewrite here and there to name some. Given that we now
have official EA system calls, the last chunk of stuff to resolve
is quota. This is being worked on with Jan Kara.

Steve


-- 

Steve Lord                                      voice: +1-651-683-3511
Principal Engineer, Filesystem Software         email: lord@sgi.com

Re: Congrats Marcelo,

[Daniel Phillips]

On February 26, 2002 10:56 pm, Steve Lord wrote:
> On Tue, 2002-02-26 at 15:06, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> > On Feb 26, 2002  12:38 -0800, Dennis, Jim wrote:
> > >  Now I need to know about the status of several unofficial patches:
> > 
> > While my word is by no means official, my general understanding is:
> > 
> > > 	XFS
> > 
> > Not for 2.4 - just too many changes to the core kernel code.
> 
> Someone has got to kill this assumption people have about XFS, it
> makes much smaller changes than some things which have gone in,
> the odd VM rewrite here and there to name some. Given that we now
> have official EA system calls, the last chunk of stuff to resolve
> is quota. This is being worked on with Jan Kara.

I'd really like to see XFS go in, but don't you think 2.5 is the place,
with a view to 2.4 submission in due course?

As far as making the case goes, do you have time to make a list of
places where XFS goes outside fs/xfs, and why?

-- 
Daniel

Re: Congrats Marcelo,

[Steve Lord]

On Sun, 2002-02-24 at 17:39, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> 
> I'd really like to see XFS go in, but don't you think 2.5 is the place,
> with a view to 2.4 submission in due course?

This is my thinking, but the way 2.5 is diverging the argument that
xfs being stable in 2.5 prior to going into 2.4 probably will not mean
too much at the end of the day since the interfaces will probably
have diverged so much by then - and the interfaces are where the
nasties tend to come out. The core of XFS is pretty darn stable.

> 
> As far as making the case goes, do you have time to make a list of
> places where XFS goes outside fs/xfs, and why?

I have had about 20 emails since I got yours ;-) One of the reasons
I have not been attempting to submit XFS is that I have too many 
other things going on right now, hopefully things are getting 
quieter and I can take a shot at this again. I will see how tomorrow
goes ....

Steve

> 
> -- 
> Daniel
-- 

Steve Lord                                      voice: +1-651-683-3511
Principal Engineer, Filesystem Software         email: lord@sgi.com

Re: Congrats Marcelo,

[Daniel Phillips]

On February 27, 2002 12:07 am, Steve Lord wrote:
> On Sun, 2002-02-24 at 17:39, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > I'd really like to see XFS go in, but don't you think 2.5 is the place,
> > with a view to 2.4 submission in due course?
> 
> This is my thinking, but the way 2.5 is diverging the argument that
> xfs being stable in 2.5 prior to going into 2.4 probably will not mean
> too much at the end of the day since the interfaces will probably
> have diverged so much by then - and the interfaces are where the
> nasties tend to come out. The core of XFS is pretty darn stable.

It will mean a lot.  It will mean Linus signed off on the integration,
and that the issues were examined.  Marcelo is perfectly capable of
determining what the additional 2.4 issues are, if any.

-- 
Daniel

Re: Congrats Marcelo,

[Rainer Ellinger]

Daniel Phillips wrote:

> I'd really like to see XFS go in, but don't you think 2.5 is the place,
> with a view to 2.4 submission in due course?

In my opinion the main problem behind the originating note is the big difference between the mainline "linus" kernel and what 
people really need or are really using. And this might be also a problem for development. Take distribution vendor kernels: make a 
diff of your favorite distribution kernel and the vanilla one and think about it. SuSE allows a detailed look inside at 
ftp://ftp.suse.com/pub/people/mantel/next/patches-2.4.18-0.tar.bz2

I think development in 2.5 should focus on including this waiting patches and come to a end and release asap. I think it's more 
important to catch up with real world needs and existing patches, than working on new developments.

> As far as making the case goes, do you have time to make a list of
> places where XFS goes outside fs/xfs, and why?

For me ftp://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs/download/patches/2.4.17/README does it. ;-)

-- 
rainer@ellinger.de

Re: Congrats Marcelo,

[Daniel Phillips]

On February 27, 2002 12:23 am, Rainer Ellinger wrote:
> I think development in 2.5 should focus on including this waiting patches
> and come to a end and release asap. I think it's more important to catch up 
> with real world needs and existing patches, than working on new 
> developments.

They're both important.  If we focus only on features without evolving the 
underlying mechanisms we'll quickly end up with Windows.

Don't even think about asking Linus to stop working on new stuff.

-- 
Daniel

Re: Congrats Marcelo,

[Martin J. Bligh]

> I think development in 2.5 should focus on including this waiting 
> patches and come to a end and release asap. I think it's more 
> important to catch up with real world needs and existing patches, 
> than working on new developments.

More important for who ? ;-)

Linus and you (even the majority of the userbase) may not have
the same goals .... feel free to take what is in 2.5 right now,
stabilise it, and add these patches, making your own tree - you'd
probably make a lot of people happy.

Martin.

Re: Congrats Marcelo,

[Rainer Ellinger]

Martin J. Bligh wrote:
> the same goals .... feel free to take what is in 2.5 right now,
> stabilise it, and add these patches, making your own tree
 > probably make a lot of people happy.

That's the arrogant point of view, you can have, if you get paid for it. Please correct me, but I don't know any major tree from 
volunteers.

I have my own tree integrating XFS, LoopAES, UML, IPVS, Freeswan with X.509, LSM, TUX  and some smaller netfilter things. It's not 
a big deal integrating these patches, but it's still too much work. Guess, why i am not able to release this to public?

-- 
rainer@ellinger.de

Re: Congrats Marcelo,

[Martin J. Bligh]

>> the same goals .... feel free to take what is in 2.5 right now,
>> stabilise it, and add these patches, making your own tree
>  > probably make a lot of people happy.
> 
> That's the arrogant point of view, you can have, if you get 
> paid for it. Please correct me, but I don't know any major tree 
> from volunteers.

I was merely pointing out that his goals probably don't align
with yours, therefore it's a little pointless to tell him what he
should and shouldn't be concentrating on.

> I have my own tree integrating XFS, LoopAES, UML, IPVS, 
> Freeswan with X.509, LSM, TUX  and some smaller netfilter 
> things. It's not a big deal integrating these patches, but it's 
> still too much work. Guess, why i am not able to release this 
> to public?

I have no idea. My psychic powers seem to be fading of late.

M.

Re: Congrats Marcelo,

[Matthew D. Pitts]

Rainer,

I may be wrong, but I believe the Debian kernel tree is ENTIRELY volunteer
work. If that doesn't constitute a major tree, I don't know what does...

Matthew

----- Original Message -----
From: Rainer Ellinger <rainer@ellinger.de>
To: Martin J. Bligh <Martin.Bligh@us.ibm.com>
Cc: <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 7:47 PM
Subject: Re: Congrats Marcelo,


> Martin J. Bligh wrote:
> > the same goals .... feel free to take what is in 2.5 right now,
> > stabilise it, and add these patches, making your own tree
>  > probably make a lot of people happy.
>
> That's the arrogant point of view, you can have, if you get paid for it.
Please correct me, but I don't know any major tree from
> volunteers.
>
> I have my own tree integrating XFS, LoopAES, UML, IPVS, Freeswan with
X.509, LSM, TUX  and some smaller netfilter things. It's not
> a big deal integrating these patches, but it's still too much work. Guess,
why i am not able to release this to public?
>
> --
> rainer@ellinger.de
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: Congrats Marcelo,

[Alan Cox]

> Someone has got to kill this assumption people have about XFS, it
> makes much smaller changes than some things which have gone in,
> the odd VM rewrite here and there to name some. Given that we now

Which was a complete disaster. IBM submitted Jfs into the -ac tree with
no lines of code changed outside fs/jfs. That is really the benchmark. 

Re: Congrats Marcelo,

[Steve Lord]

On Tue, 2002-02-26 at 16:59, Alan Cox wrote:
> > Someone has got to kill this assumption people have about XFS, it
> > makes much smaller changes than some things which have gone in,
> > the odd VM rewrite here and there to name some. Given that we now
> 
> Which was a complete disaster. IBM submitted Jfs into the -ac tree with
> no lines of code changed outside fs/jfs. That is really the benchmark.


Alan, I agree the VM changes had their issues, bad example, but LOTs of
things have gone into 2.4 which are more impactive than XFS, I just want
to get out of this image of XFS being the filesystem which ate the
kernel.

Yes jfs went in cleanly, because they reimplemented their filesystem
from the ground up, and had a large budget to do it. XFS does not fit
so cleanly because we brought along some features other filesystems did
not have:

  o Posix ACL support
  o The ability to do online filesystem dumps which are coherent with
    the system call interface
  o delayed allocation of file data
  o DMAPI

As it is we did all of these, and we seem to have half the Linux NAS
vendors in the world building xfs into their boxes.

Steve

-- 

Steve Lord                                      voice: +1-651-683-3511
Principal Engineer, Filesystem Software         email: lord@sgi.com

Re: Congrats Marcelo,

[J.A. Magallon]

On 20020226 Steve Lord wrote:
>On Tue, 2002-02-26 at 15:06, Andreas Dilger wrote:
>> On Feb 26, 2002  12:38 -0800, Dennis, Jim wrote:
>> >  Now I need to know about the status of several unofficial patches:
>> 
>> While my word is by no means official, my general understanding is:
>> 
>> > 	XFS
>> 
>> Not for 2.4 - just too many changes to the core kernel code.
>
>Someone has got to kill this assumption people have about XFS, it
>makes much smaller changes than some things which have gone in,
>the odd VM rewrite here and there to name some. Given that we now
>have official EA system calls, the last chunk of stuff to resolve
>is quota. This is being worked on with Jan Kara.
>

AFAIK, it does not so many changes but duplicates half the fs 
infrastructure already present in kernel just to have a common
codebase with IRIX.

Is this still true ?
Is anybody working in kill all the dups ?
 
-- 
J.A. Magallon                           #  Let the source be with you...        
mailto:jamagallon@able.es
Mandrake Linux release 8.2 (Cooker) for i586
Linux werewolf 2.4.18-jam1 #1 SMP Tue Feb 26 00:06:55 CET 2002 i686

Re: Congrats Marcelo,

[Marcelo Tosatti]

On Tue, 26 Feb 2002, Dennis, Jim wrote:

> Marcelo,
> 
>  Contratulations on your first "official" kernel release.  It seems to
> have gone
>  well (except for some complaints on slashdot about -rc4 SPARC patches
> missing from
>  the patch, but apparently in the full tarball).
> 
>  Now I need to know about the status of several unofficial patches:
> 
> 	XFS

Want to see stable in -ac first.

> 	LVM

Its on 2.4 already.

> 	i2c
> 	Crypto
> 	FreeS/WAN KLIPS
> 	LIDS

I think its not possible to distribute crypto stuff in the stock kernel.

Am I wrong? 

> 	rmap

I need to see it running in production for more time.

>  Marcelo, there were some i2c updates included in the lmsensors package,
> have they
>  submitted those to you for integration into 2.4.19?

Nope. I could well integrate lm_sensors in the future.

Re: Congrats Marcelo,

[Alan Cox]

> > 	i2c
> > 	Crypto
> > 	FreeS/WAN KLIPS
> > 	LIDS
> 
> I think its not possible to distribute crypto stuff in the stock kernel.
> Am I wrong? 

It gets hairy. There are some jurisdictions where life is a lot easier
if its seperate. 

> > have they
> >  submitted those to you for integration into 2.4.19?
> 
> Nope. I could well integrate lm_sensors in the future.

Please be careful. lm_sensors can destroy machines if configured wrongly.
Thats something that needs tackling - and ironically ACPI may actually
solve that problem

Re: Congrats Marcelo,

[Dave Jones]

On Fri, 1 Mar 2002, Alan Cox wrote:

> > Nope. I could well integrate lm_sensors in the future.
> Please be careful. lm_sensors can destroy machines if configured wrongly.
> Thats something that needs tackling - and ironically ACPI may actually
> solve that problem

The machines in question are all IBMs iirc ? Could we work around
this with DMI strings for the suspect laptops ?

-- 
| Dave Jones.        http://www.codemonkey.org.uk
| SuSE Labs

Re: Congrats Marcelo,

[Alan Cox]

> The machines in question are all IBMs iirc ? Could we work around
> this with DMI strings for the suspect laptops ?

DMI can help in a much more productive way. DMI tells you the type of 
sensor in the machine. Once you are using ACPI though you talk to ACPI
and it talks to the smbus etc and knows whats in the box

Re: Congrats Marcelo,

[Dave Jones]

On Fri, Mar 01, 2002 at 01:13:09AM +0000, Alan Cox wrote:
 > DMI can help in a much more productive way. DMI tells you the type of 
 > sensor in the machine. Once you are using ACPI though you talk to ACPI
 > and it talks to the smbus etc and knows whats in the box

 Given the fears of what happens when you look at i2c/smbus etc
 the wrong way, is this something we can rely on DMI tables
 to get right ?  When they can't get cachesize info right, I begin
 to question their ability to describe a temperature sensor.

-- 
| Dave Jones.        http://www.codemonkey.org.uk
| SuSE Labs

Re: Congrats Marcelo,

[Alan Cox]

>  > sensor in the machine. Once you are using ACPI though you talk to ACPI
>  > and it talks to the smbus etc and knows whats in the box
> 
>  Given the fears of what happens when you look at i2c/smbus etc
>  the wrong way, is this something we can rely on DMI tables
>  to get right ?  When they can't get cachesize info right, I begin
>  to question their ability to describe a temperature sensor.

The ones I looked at seemed credible - but yes it is an issue 8)

Re: Congrats Marcelo,

[Theodore Tso]

On Fri, Mar 01, 2002 at 12:01:51AM +0000, Alan Cox wrote:
> > 
> > Nope. I could well integrate lm_sensors in the future.
> 
> Please be careful. lm_sensors can destroy machines if configured wrongly.
> Thats something that needs tackling - and ironically ACPI may actually
> solve that problem

... as in instant death for any modern Thinkpad laptops, requiring a
trip back to the factory and a replacement of the motherboard...

*Please* don't integrate in lm_sensors without making sure the
thinkpad killing feature has been fixed.

						- Ted

Re: Congrats Marcelo,

[Mike Fedyk]

On Thu, Feb 28, 2002 at 08:28:03PM -0500, Theodore Tso wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 01, 2002 at 12:01:51AM +0000, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > 
> > > Nope. I could well integrate lm_sensors in the future.
> > 
> > Please be careful. lm_sensors can destroy machines if configured wrongly.
> > Thats something that needs tackling - and ironically ACPI may actually
> > solve that problem
> 
> ... as in instant death for any modern Thinkpad laptops, requiring a
> trip back to the factory and a replacement of the motherboard...
> 
> *Please* don't integrate in lm_sensors without making sure the
> thinkpad killing feature has been fixed.
>

Or, just don't integrate that part of the patch...

Re: Congrats Marcelo,

[Hans-Peter Jansen]

On Friday, 1. March 2002 02:53, Mike Fedyk wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2002 at 08:28:03PM -0500, Theodore Tso wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 01, 2002 at 12:01:51AM +0000, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > > Nope. I could well integrate lm_sensors in the future.
> > >
> > > Please be careful. lm_sensors can destroy machines if configured
> > > wrongly. Thats something that needs tackling - and ironically ACPI may
> > > actually solve that problem
> >
> > ... as in instant death for any modern Thinkpad laptops, requiring a
> > trip back to the factory and a replacement of the motherboard...
> >
> > *Please* don't integrate in lm_sensors without making sure the
> > thinkpad killing feature has been fixed.
>
> Or, just don't integrate that part of the patch...

The problem is nested deeper, I suspect.
When accessing the detected sensor on my toshiba 8100,
the automatic temperature control isn't working any longer...
Normally you can hear it starting every time, the cpu is under 
load.

Better you reboot quickly after that, with lm-sensors (2.62) disabled
then...

Details on request.

Cheers,
  Hans-Peter

> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: Congrats Marcelo,

[Stephen Degler]

Hi,

FYI crypto is included in (Net|Free|Open)BSD source releases and I don't
believe it is an issue for them.

skd

On Thu, Feb 28, 2002 at 06:52:25PM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 26 Feb 2002, Dennis, Jim wrote:
> 
> > Marcelo,
> > 
> >  Contratulations on your first "official" kernel release.  It seems to
> > have gone
> >  well (except for some complaints on slashdot about -rc4 SPARC patches
> > missing from
> >  the patch, but apparently in the full tarball).
> > 
> >  Now I need to know about the status of several unofficial patches:
> > 
> > 	XFS
> 
> Want to see stable in -ac first.
> 
> > 	LVM
> 
> Its on 2.4 already.
> 
> > 	i2c
> > 	Crypto
> > 	FreeS/WAN KLIPS
> > 	LIDS
> 
> I think its not possible to distribute crypto stuff in the stock kernel.
> 
> Am I wrong? 
> 
> > 	rmap
> 
> I need to see it running in production for more time.
> 
> >  Marcelo, there were some i2c updates included in the lmsensors package,
> > have they
> >  submitted those to you for integration into 2.4.19?
> 
> Nope. I could well integrate lm_sensors in the future.
> 
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: Congrats Marcelo,

[Bill Davidsen]

On Tue, 26 Feb 2002, Dennis, Jim wrote:

>  Now I need to know about the status of several unofficial patches:
> 
> 	XFS
> 	LVM
> 	i2c
> 	Crypto
> 	FreeS/WAN KLIPS
> 	LIDS
> 	rmap

These have been addressed, let me add NGPT (next generation pthreads) to
that list. The IBM site says the patches have been accepted by Linus for
mainline code, it would be good to get these in, unless they need a higher
blessing than that!

-- 
bill davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>
  CTO, TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979.