7%
30.09.2013
obviously fine and clearly too simple to cause a problem, Greg would accept it before the -rc version as well.
So, a maintainer, a discussion, or Greg's own eyes could bring a patch early to the stable
7%
07.03.2014
on kernel.org if he wanted, but Peter replied, "No, if you are genuinely planning another release soon that's fine."
Changing The ABI
David Howells recently broached a touchy subject. Some of the Kerberos
7%
25.10.2013
' works just fine."
Joe Perches added the maintainer Yoshinori Sato to the CC list, just in case there was a plan or a hope to revive the architecture at some point. Guenter mentioned that he'd done
7%
06.09.2013
't hold a grudge – I have these explosive emails. And that works well for some people. And it probably doesn't work well with you.
And you know what? That's fine. Not everybody had to get along or work
7%
27.06.2014
the ability to claim additional CPU cycles for itself. You don't want to have to trust user code. On the other hand, allowing user code to yield CPU cycles to another process is perfectly fine. User code can
7%
26.01.2016
for the MongoDB database name that you want to use. If you are installing on a single server, the defaults are fine. At the end, Pritunl writes its own pritunl.conf based on your details. All told, the entire
7%
28.08.2014
as a module. He said:
Please, no. "Just say m if you don't know" was fine in the late 90s, when Linux was mostly x86. You could afford including 3% of useless drivers, and people working on other architectures
7%
02.04.2014
_find_alias() is not correct or sufficient either. It can work in practice (and probably does perfectly fine 99.9% of the time), but it can equally well give the *wrong* dentry: yes, the dentry it returns would have been
7%
19.08.2016
other clients from accessing the same file.
As long as the process is limited to a single instance of Samba, everything works fine: The single Samba server can reliably assume that its version of locking
7%
27.10.2016
written). That's fine; the question is what the caller can count upon
wrt shortening.
Again, we are *not* guaranteed writing up to [an] exact boundary. However, the current implementation will end up
