It's against 2.0 because a) I run 2.0, and b) most people run 2.0. I
don't think there's a great likelihood of the patch being adopted into the
offical 2.1/2.2 kernel -- maybe I'm wrong about that. However, I have
been toying with the idea of switching to 2.1 for some time now, and as
soon as I do I'll forward-port the patch. I'll probably do this sometime
in 2.1.5x. It doesn't look like a big deal -- the main difference in the
affected code is that cli()/sti() pairs have been replaced with a much
better locking scheme.
-- Adam
On Mon, 11 Aug 1997, Aaron Tiensivu wrote:
> > I was going to wait for 2.0.31, but I thought "oh Hell", and I am
> > releasing this now to see how it works for people. With any luck it'll
> > patch cleanly against '31 when it is released.
>
> It might be preferred to make this patch against 2.1.49 instead of 2.0.x since
> I believe something like this will probably not be added into 2.0 and more
> likely to be thrashed about in 2.1.x.
>
> If it were against 2.1.x, I'd test it to death. ;-)
> Or if it wasn't too much trouble, make two versions.
>
> I haven't tried to apply it to 2.1.x yet, so I'm just making rash assumptions
> that it wouldn't go in cleanly.
>
> --
> Which is worse: ignorance or apathy? Who knows? Who cares?
> OK, so you're a Ph.D. Just don't touch anything.
> Software is like sex; it's better when it's free. - Linus Torvalds
> IBM: It may be slow, but at least it's expensive.
> Microsoft: What do you want to own today?
>