Re: [RFC] Is an alternative module interface needed/possible?

From: Werner Almesberger (wa@almesberger.net)
Date: Tue Feb 18 2003 - 09:14:00 EST

Next message: Jan-Benedict Glaw: "Re: [PATCH] morse code panics for 2.5.62"
Previous message: Marc-Christian Petersen: "[PATCH 2.5.62]: 2/3: Make SCSI low-level drivers also a seperate, complete selectable submenu"
In reply to: Roman Zippel: "Re: [RFC] Is an alternative module interface needed/possible?"
Next in thread: Roman Zippel: "Re: [RFC] Is an alternative module interface needed/possible?"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Roman Zippel wrote:
> Um, another point, let's ignore "minimum invasive migration plans", if we
> found a good solution, we can still figure out how to get there smoothly,
> so this shouldn't be a primary concern.

In my next posting, I just wrote (this very minute)

"For brainstorming's sake, let's not worry about backward-compatibility
for now:"

So I guess I don't need this disclaimer then ;-)

- Werner

-- 
  _________________________________________________________________________
 / Werner Almesberger, Buenos Aires, Argentina         wa@almesberger.net /
/_http://www.almesberger.net/____________________________________________/
-
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/

Next message: Jan-Benedict Glaw: "Re: [PATCH] morse code panics for 2.5.62"
Previous message: Marc-Christian Petersen: "[PATCH 2.5.62]: 2/3: Make SCSI low-level drivers also a seperate, complete selectable submenu"
In reply to: Roman Zippel: "Re: [RFC] Is an alternative module interface needed/possible?"
Next in thread: Roman Zippel: "Re: [RFC] Is an alternative module interface needed/possible?"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Feb 23 2003 - 22:00:21 EST