Re: utsname/hostname

Randy.Dunlap
2006-06-05T03:07:50Z

On Sun, 4 Jun 2006 18:06:18 -0700 Andrew Morton wrote:

> On Sun, 4 Jun 2006 17:02:18 -0700
> "Randy.Dunlap" <rdunlap@xenotime.net> wrote:
>
> > > utsname virtualisation. This doesn't seem very pointful as a standalone
> > > thing. That's a general problem with infrastructural work for a very
> > > large new feature.
> > >
> > > So probably I'll continue to babysit these patches, unless someone can
> > > identify a decent reason why mainline needs this work.
> >
> > Not a strong argument for mainline, but I have a patch to make
> > <hostname> larger (up to 255 bytes, per POSIX).
> > http://www.xenotime.net/linux/patches/hostname-2617-rc5b.patch
>
> My immediate reaction to that was to tell posix to go take a hike. I mean,
> sheesh.

well thanks for finally replying then.
That's my reaction to some other patches (in -mm) as well
(not that it matters).

> > I can either update my hostname patch against mm/utsname.. or not.
> > But I don't really want to see some/any patch blocked due to a patch
> > in -mm being borderline "pointful," so how do we deal with this?
>
> Well first we need to work out if there's any vague reason why we need to
> mucky up our kernel by implementing this dopey spec. If there is such a
> reason then I guess I drop all the ustname patches and ask that they be
> redone. They're a bit straggly and a refactoring/rechanngelogging wouldn't
> hurt.

Fixing the changelog is easy. What refactoring do you mean?

---
~Randy