Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 24 Jul 2004 12:54:01 -0700 | From | Paul Jackson <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Delete cryptoloop |
| |
Andrew suggested: > printk("cryptoloop will be ... June 30, 2005 ...
Andreas asked: > If EXPERIMENTAL isn't discuraging enough why not use BROKEN?
Won't printk's will reach a wider proportion of the intended audience than CONFIG variations?
And the specificity of the date-certain in the printk enables individual planning and adaptive behaviour that the timelessness of CONFIG labels can't touch.
Does your printk idea work for devfs as well, Andrew?
-- I won't rest till it's the best ... Programmer, Linux Scalability Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com> 1.650.933.1373 - 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/
| |