Hello all, specially David
I think this patch is trivial enough to be accepted, but...
This patch fixed some stuff:
* Fixed warning in script/lxdialog/menubox.c
* Fixed warning in script/lxdialog/textbox.c
* Small VM updates ...
Please apply.
best regards,
--
Fernando Alencar Mar?stica
Graduate Student, Computer Science
Linux Register User Id #281457
University Methodist of Piracicaba
Departament of Computer Science
home: http://www.unimep.br/~famarost
On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 05:02:37PM -0200, Fernando Alencar Mar?stica wrote:
> Hello all, specially David
>
> I think this patch is trivial enough to be accepted, but...
>
> This patch fixed some stuff:
> * Fixed warning in script/lxdialog/menubox.c
> * Fixed warning in script/lxdialog/textbox.c
> * Small VM updates ...
Since you are doing changes to the VM, I would like detail descriptions
of what each change does, and why it is necessary, stability- or
security-wise. I will not accept changes to the VM subsystem unless
there is a valid reason; let the early v2.4-series be witness to why
this is a good stance.
Speedups are generally not counted as a valid reason, unless we're
talking a change in the order of a magnitude or more. Code cleanup
might be a good reason, but then I'll merge it into the 2.0.41-tree
instead; this will probably be the case for your lxdialog-fixes, since
I'm cleaning up that code anyway for 2.0.41.
Regards: David Weinehall
--
/> David Weinehall <[email protected]> /> Northern lights wander <\
// Maintainer of the v2.0 kernel // Dance across the winter sky //
\> http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/ </ Full colour fire </
> Since you are doing changes to the VM, I would like detail descriptions
> of what each change does, and why it is necessary, stability- or
> security-wise. I will not accept changes to the VM subsystem unless
> there is a valid reason; let the early v2.4-series be witness to why
> this is a good stance.
David,
I've must install Linux on AMD386 DX40, HD Maxtor 160MB, 8MB RAM for
this task i used kernel 2.0.39.
When I compiled kernel 2.0.39, I noticed some `warnings` which I
corrected as mentioned previously.
Then I inspected the VM subsystem code, where found any stuff
that could be cleanup and improved, such as:
+#define clear_page(page) memset((void *)(page), 0, PAGE_SIZE)
+#define copy_page(to,from) memcpy((void *)(to), (void *)(from),
PAGE_SIZE)
> Speedups are generally not counted as a valid reason, unless we're
> talking a change in the order of a magnitude or more. Code cleanup
> might be a good reason, but then I'll merge it into the 2.0.41-tree
> instead; this will probably be the case for your lxdialog-fixes, since
> I'm cleaning up that code anyway for 2.0.41.
LOL!
The main reason this patch is cleanup and better code standartize.
I think thats code cleanup is good reason too!
> Regards: David Weinehall
> --
> /> David Weinehall <[email protected]> /> Northern lights wander <\
> // Maintainer of the v2.0 kernel // Dance across the winter sky //
> \> http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/ </ Full colour fire </
>
Have fun!
--
Fernando Alencar Mar?stica
Graduate Student, Computer Science
Linux Register User Id #281457
University Methodist of Piracicaba
Departament of Computer Science
home: http://www.unimep.br/~famarost