From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 14 Oct 2002 16:18:39 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 14 Oct 2002 16:18:38 -0400 Received: from inrete-46-20.inrete.it ([81.92.46.20]:47341 "EHLO pdamail1-pdamail.inrete.it") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 14 Oct 2002 16:18:37 -0400 Message-ID: <3DAB27F2.F8A00FE1@inrete.it> Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 22:24:18 +0200 From: Daniele Lugli Organization: General Logic srl X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.18-rthal5 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Frank Davis , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: unhappy with current.h References: <20021014.161535.17120.336861@webmail4.nyc.untd.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Frank Davis wrote: > > Daniele, > Its easier for you to modify your code than to ask the kernel developers to modify a commonly used, intangled macro within the Linux kernel. :) > > Regards, > Frank Thank you for your calm reply. You're right, and in fact that's what I did before sending my mail. I'm not asking to modify an existing and (unhappily) well-established kernel file; I am only giving a suggestion for the future - if a common mortal human being can give suggestions. Regards, Daniele Lugli