* [PATCH] hwmon/sch56xx: Depend on watchdog for watchdog core functions
@ 2012-05-24 20:18 ` Hans de Goede
0 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: Hans de Goede @ 2012-05-24 20:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-watchdog; +Cc: Wim Van Sebroeck, LM Sensors, linux-next, Hans de Goede
Since the watchdog code in sch56xx-common now uses the watchdog core, the
Kconfig entires for the sch5627 and sch5636 should depend on WATCHDOG
being set.
Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
---
drivers/hwmon/Kconfig | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/hwmon/Kconfig b/drivers/hwmon/Kconfig
index 8deedc1..3d16d66 100644
--- a/drivers/hwmon/Kconfig
+++ b/drivers/hwmon/Kconfig
@@ -1036,7 +1036,7 @@ config SENSORS_SCH56XX_COMMON
config SENSORS_SCH5627
tristate "SMSC SCH5627"
- depends on !PPC
+ depends on !PPC && WATCHDOG
select SENSORS_SCH56XX_COMMON
help
If you say yes here you get support for the hardware monitoring
@@ -1048,7 +1048,7 @@ config SENSORS_SCH5627
config SENSORS_SCH5636
tristate "SMSC SCH5636"
- depends on !PPC
+ depends on !PPC && WATCHDOG
select SENSORS_SCH56XX_COMMON
help
SMSC SCH5636 Super I/O chips include an embedded microcontroller for
--
1.7.10
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* [lm-sensors] [PATCH] hwmon/sch56xx: Depend on watchdog for watchdog core functions
@ 2012-05-24 20:18 ` Hans de Goede
0 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: Hans de Goede @ 2012-05-24 20:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-watchdog; +Cc: Wim Van Sebroeck, LM Sensors, linux-next, Hans de Goede
Since the watchdog code in sch56xx-common now uses the watchdog core, the
Kconfig entires for the sch5627 and sch5636 should depend on WATCHDOG
being set.
Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
---
drivers/hwmon/Kconfig | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/hwmon/Kconfig b/drivers/hwmon/Kconfig
index 8deedc1..3d16d66 100644
--- a/drivers/hwmon/Kconfig
+++ b/drivers/hwmon/Kconfig
@@ -1036,7 +1036,7 @@ config SENSORS_SCH56XX_COMMON
config SENSORS_SCH5627
tristate "SMSC SCH5627"
- depends on !PPC
+ depends on !PPC && WATCHDOG
select SENSORS_SCH56XX_COMMON
help
If you say yes here you get support for the hardware monitoring
@@ -1048,7 +1048,7 @@ config SENSORS_SCH5627
config SENSORS_SCH5636
tristate "SMSC SCH5636"
- depends on !PPC
+ depends on !PPC && WATCHDOG
select SENSORS_SCH56XX_COMMON
help
SMSC SCH5636 Super I/O chips include an embedded microcontroller for
--
1.7.10
_______________________________________________
lm-sensors mailing list
lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org
http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] hwmon/sch56xx: Depend on watchdog for watchdog core functions
2012-05-24 20:18 ` [lm-sensors] " Hans de Goede
@ 2012-05-24 20:54 ` Wim Van Sebroeck
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: Wim Van Sebroeck @ 2012-05-24 20:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Hans de Goede; +Cc: linux-watchdog, LM Sensors, linux-next
Hi Hans,
> Since the watchdog code in sch56xx-common now uses the watchdog core, the
> Kconfig entires for the sch5627 and sch5636 should depend on WATCHDOG
> being set.
>
> Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
I added also the "select WATCHDOG_CORE" lines for both drivers.
In linux-watchdog-next now.
Kind regards,
Wim.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [lm-sensors] [PATCH] hwmon/sch56xx: Depend on watchdog for watchdog core functions
@ 2012-05-24 20:54 ` Wim Van Sebroeck
0 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: Wim Van Sebroeck @ 2012-05-24 20:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Hans de Goede; +Cc: linux-watchdog, LM Sensors, linux-next
Hi Hans,
> Since the watchdog code in sch56xx-common now uses the watchdog core, the
> Kconfig entires for the sch5627 and sch5636 should depend on WATCHDOG
> being set.
>
> Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
I added also the "select WATCHDOG_CORE" lines for both drivers.
In linux-watchdog-next now.
Kind regards,
Wim.
_______________________________________________
lm-sensors mailing list
lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org
http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [lm-sensors] [PATCH] hwmon/sch56xx: Depend on watchdog for watchdog core functions
2012-05-24 20:54 ` [lm-sensors] " Wim Van Sebroeck
@ 2012-05-29 16:11 ` Guenter Roeck
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: Guenter Roeck @ 2012-05-29 16:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Wim Van Sebroeck; +Cc: Hans de Goede, linux-next, linux-watchdog, LM Sensors
On Thu, 2012-05-24 at 16:54 -0400, Wim Van Sebroeck wrote:
> Hi Hans,
>
> > Since the watchdog code in sch56xx-common now uses the watchdog core, the
> > Kconfig entires for the sch5627 and sch5636 should depend on WATCHDOG
> > being set.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
>
> I added also the "select WATCHDOG_CORE" lines for both drivers.
> In linux-watchdog-next now.
>
Hi Wim,
looks like Hans' patches are all in your tree, so I assume I don't have
to take anything through my hwmon tree. Please let me know if I got that
wrong.
Thanks,
Guenter
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [lm-sensors] [PATCH] hwmon/sch56xx: Depend on watchdog for watchdog core functions
@ 2012-05-29 16:11 ` Guenter Roeck
0 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: Guenter Roeck @ 2012-05-29 16:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Wim Van Sebroeck; +Cc: Hans de Goede, linux-next, linux-watchdog, LM Sensors
On Thu, 2012-05-24 at 16:54 -0400, Wim Van Sebroeck wrote:
> Hi Hans,
>
> > Since the watchdog code in sch56xx-common now uses the watchdog core, the
> > Kconfig entires for the sch5627 and sch5636 should depend on WATCHDOG
> > being set.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
>
> I added also the "select WATCHDOG_CORE" lines for both drivers.
> In linux-watchdog-next now.
>
Hi Wim,
looks like Hans' patches are all in your tree, so I assume I don't have
to take anything through my hwmon tree. Please let me know if I got that
wrong.
Thanks,
Guenter
_______________________________________________
lm-sensors mailing list
lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org
http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [lm-sensors] [PATCH] hwmon/sch56xx: Depend on watchdog for watchdog core functions
2012-05-29 16:11 ` Guenter Roeck
(?)
@ 2012-05-29 17:24 ` Wim Van Sebroeck
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: Wim Van Sebroeck @ 2012-05-29 17:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Guenter Roeck; +Cc: Hans de Goede, linux-next, linux-watchdog, LM Sensors
Hi Guenter,
> > > Since the watchdog code in sch56xx-common now uses the watchdog core, the
> > > Kconfig entires for the sch5627 and sch5636 should depend on WATCHDOG
> > > being set.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
> >
> > I added also the "select WATCHDOG_CORE" lines for both drivers.
> > In linux-watchdog-next now.
> >
> Hi Wim,
>
> looks like Hans' patches are all in your tree, so I assume I don't have
> to take anything through my hwmon tree. Please let me know if I got that
> wrong.
All is in my tree indeed. So you don't need to do anything on your side.
Kind regards,
Wim.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] hwmon/sch56xx: Depend on watchdog for watchdog core functions
@ 2012-05-29 17:24 ` Wim Van Sebroeck
0 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: Wim Van Sebroeck @ 2012-05-29 17:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Guenter Roeck; +Cc: linux-next, linux-watchdog, LM Sensors
Hi Guenter,
> > > Since the watchdog code in sch56xx-common now uses the watchdog core, the
> > > Kconfig entires for the sch5627 and sch5636 should depend on WATCHDOG
> > > being set.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
> >
> > I added also the "select WATCHDOG_CORE" lines for both drivers.
> > In linux-watchdog-next now.
> >
> Hi Wim,
>
> looks like Hans' patches are all in your tree, so I assume I don't have
> to take anything through my hwmon tree. Please let me know if I got that
> wrong.
All is in my tree indeed. So you don't need to do anything on your side.
Kind regards,
Wim.
_______________________________________________
lm-sensors mailing list
lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org
http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [lm-sensors] [PATCH] hwmon/sch56xx: Depend on watchdog for watchdog core functions
@ 2012-05-29 17:24 ` Wim Van Sebroeck
0 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: Wim Van Sebroeck @ 2012-05-29 17:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Guenter Roeck; +Cc: Hans de Goede, linux-next, linux-watchdog, LM Sensors
Hi Guenter,
> > > Since the watchdog code in sch56xx-common now uses the watchdog core, the
> > > Kconfig entires for the sch5627 and sch5636 should depend on WATCHDOG
> > > being set.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
> >
> > I added also the "select WATCHDOG_CORE" lines for both drivers.
> > In linux-watchdog-next now.
> >
> Hi Wim,
>
> looks like Hans' patches are all in your tree, so I assume I don't have
> to take anything through my hwmon tree. Please let me know if I got that
> wrong.
All is in my tree indeed. So you don't need to do anything on your side.
Kind regards,
Wim.
_______________________________________________
lm-sensors mailing list
lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org
http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [lm-sensors] [PATCH] hwmon/sch56xx: Depend on watchdog for watchdog core functions
2012-05-29 16:11 ` Guenter Roeck
@ 2012-06-01 13:37 ` Hans de Goede
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: Hans de Goede @ 2012-06-01 13:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: guenter.roeck; +Cc: Wim Van Sebroeck, linux-next, linux-watchdog, LM Sensors
Hi,
On 05/29/2012 06:11 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-05-24 at 16:54 -0400, Wim Van Sebroeck wrote:
>> Hi Hans,
>>
>>> Since the watchdog code in sch56xx-common now uses the watchdog core, the
>>> Kconfig entires for the sch5627 and sch5636 should depend on WATCHDOG
>>> being set.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede<hdegoede@redhat.com>
>>
>> I added also the "select WATCHDOG_CORE" lines for both drivers.
>> In linux-watchdog-next now.
>>
> Hi Wim,
>
> looks like Hans' patches are all in your tree, so I assume I don't have
> to take anything through my hwmon tree. Please let me know if I got that
> wrong.
Right, the sch56xx watchdog code conversion to the watchcore depended on
some pending watchdag core changes, so it seemed sensible to get them all
in though Wim's tree. Sorry if that caused any confusion.
Now that we've a common watchdog core, I would also like to convert the
fschmd watchdog code to it (one of these days). Which raises the question
through which tree should that conversion go in. fschmd is primarily a hwmon
driver, but the changes will only touch the watchdog part...
I guess it would be best to get the conversion in to Wim's tree, even though
that slightly increases the chance of conflicts. The fschmd driver does not see
a lot of churn, and I think Wim is a better reviewer for watchdog related
patches :)
Thanks & Regards,
Hans
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [lm-sensors] [PATCH] hwmon/sch56xx: Depend on watchdog for watchdog core functions
@ 2012-06-01 13:37 ` Hans de Goede
0 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: Hans de Goede @ 2012-06-01 13:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: guenter.roeck; +Cc: Wim Van Sebroeck, linux-next, linux-watchdog, LM Sensors
Hi,
On 05/29/2012 06:11 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-05-24 at 16:54 -0400, Wim Van Sebroeck wrote:
>> Hi Hans,
>>
>>> Since the watchdog code in sch56xx-common now uses the watchdog core, the
>>> Kconfig entires for the sch5627 and sch5636 should depend on WATCHDOG
>>> being set.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede<hdegoede@redhat.com>
>>
>> I added also the "select WATCHDOG_CORE" lines for both drivers.
>> In linux-watchdog-next now.
>>
> Hi Wim,
>
> looks like Hans' patches are all in your tree, so I assume I don't have
> to take anything through my hwmon tree. Please let me know if I got that
> wrong.
Right, the sch56xx watchdog code conversion to the watchcore depended on
some pending watchdag core changes, so it seemed sensible to get them all
in though Wim's tree. Sorry if that caused any confusion.
Now that we've a common watchdog core, I would also like to convert the
fschmd watchdog code to it (one of these days). Which raises the question
through which tree should that conversion go in. fschmd is primarily a hwmon
driver, but the changes will only touch the watchdog part...
I guess it would be best to get the conversion in to Wim's tree, even though
that slightly increases the chance of conflicts. The fschmd driver does not see
a lot of churn, and I think Wim is a better reviewer for watchdog related
patches :)
Thanks & Regards,
Hans
_______________________________________________
lm-sensors mailing list
lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org
http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [lm-sensors] [PATCH] hwmon/sch56xx: Depend on watchdog for watchdog core functions
2012-06-01 13:37 ` Hans de Goede
@ 2012-06-01 14:06 ` Jean Delvare
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: Jean Delvare @ 2012-06-01 14:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Hans de Goede
Cc: guenter.roeck, Wim Van Sebroeck, linux-next, linux-watchdog, LM Sensors
On Fri, 01 Jun 2012 15:37:55 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Now that we've a common watchdog core, I would also like to convert the
> fschmd watchdog code to it (one of these days). Which raises the question
> through which tree should that conversion go in. fschmd is primarily a hwmon
> driver, but the changes will only touch the watchdog part...
>
> I guess it would be best to get the conversion in to Wim's tree, even though
> that slightly increases the chance of conflicts. The fschmd driver does not see
> a lot of churn, and I think Wim is a better reviewer for watchdog related
> patches :)
Chances of conflicts are so thin, I vote for getting it through Wim's
watchdog tree.
--
Jean Delvare
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [lm-sensors] [PATCH] hwmon/sch56xx: Depend on watchdog for watchdog core functions
@ 2012-06-01 14:06 ` Jean Delvare
0 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: Jean Delvare @ 2012-06-01 14:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Hans de Goede
Cc: guenter.roeck, Wim Van Sebroeck, linux-next, linux-watchdog, LM Sensors
On Fri, 01 Jun 2012 15:37:55 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Now that we've a common watchdog core, I would also like to convert the
> fschmd watchdog code to it (one of these days). Which raises the question
> through which tree should that conversion go in. fschmd is primarily a hwmon
> driver, but the changes will only touch the watchdog part...
>
> I guess it would be best to get the conversion in to Wim's tree, even though
> that slightly increases the chance of conflicts. The fschmd driver does not see
> a lot of churn, and I think Wim is a better reviewer for watchdog related
> patches :)
Chances of conflicts are so thin, I vote for getting it through Wim's
watchdog tree.
--
Jean Delvare
_______________________________________________
lm-sensors mailing list
lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org
http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [lm-sensors] [PATCH] hwmon/sch56xx: Depend on watchdog for watchdog core functions
2012-06-01 14:06 ` Jean Delvare
@ 2012-06-01 15:25 ` Guenter Roeck
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: Guenter Roeck @ 2012-06-01 15:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jean Delvare
Cc: Hans de Goede, Wim Van Sebroeck, linux-next, linux-watchdog, LM Sensors
On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 10:06:57AM -0400, Jean Delvare wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Jun 2012 15:37:55 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> > Now that we've a common watchdog core, I would also like to convert the
> > fschmd watchdog code to it (one of these days). Which raises the question
> > through which tree should that conversion go in. fschmd is primarily a hwmon
> > driver, but the changes will only touch the watchdog part...
> >
> > I guess it would be best to get the conversion in to Wim's tree, even though
> > that slightly increases the chance of conflicts. The fschmd driver does not see
> > a lot of churn, and I think Wim is a better reviewer for watchdog related
> > patches :)
>
> Chances of conflicts are so thin, I vote for getting it through Wim's
> watchdog tree.
>
Ok with me.
Guenter
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [lm-sensors] [PATCH] hwmon/sch56xx: Depend on watchdog for watchdog core functions
@ 2012-06-01 15:25 ` Guenter Roeck
0 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: Guenter Roeck @ 2012-06-01 15:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jean Delvare
Cc: Hans de Goede, Wim Van Sebroeck, linux-next, linux-watchdog, LM Sensors
On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 10:06:57AM -0400, Jean Delvare wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Jun 2012 15:37:55 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> > Now that we've a common watchdog core, I would also like to convert the
> > fschmd watchdog code to it (one of these days). Which raises the question
> > through which tree should that conversion go in. fschmd is primarily a hwmon
> > driver, but the changes will only touch the watchdog part...
> >
> > I guess it would be best to get the conversion in to Wim's tree, even though
> > that slightly increases the chance of conflicts. The fschmd driver does not see
> > a lot of churn, and I think Wim is a better reviewer for watchdog related
> > patches :)
>
> Chances of conflicts are so thin, I vote for getting it through Wim's
> watchdog tree.
>
Ok with me.
Guenter
_______________________________________________
lm-sensors mailing list
lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org
http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [lm-sensors] [PATCH] hwmon/sch56xx: Depend on watchdog for watchdog core functions
2012-06-01 15:25 ` Guenter Roeck
@ 2012-06-06 10:29 ` Wim Van Sebroeck
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: Wim Van Sebroeck @ 2012-06-06 10:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Guenter Roeck
Cc: Jean Delvare, Hans de Goede, linux-next, linux-watchdog, LM Sensors
Hi All,
> > > Now that we've a common watchdog core, I would also like to convert the
> > > fschmd watchdog code to it (one of these days). Which raises the question
> > > through which tree should that conversion go in. fschmd is primarily a hwmon
> > > driver, but the changes will only touch the watchdog part...
> > >
> > > I guess it would be best to get the conversion in to Wim's tree, even though
> > > that slightly increases the chance of conflicts. The fschmd driver does not see
> > > a lot of churn, and I think Wim is a better reviewer for watchdog related
> > > patches :)
> >
> > Chances of conflicts are so thin, I vote for getting it through Wim's
> > watchdog tree.
> >
> Ok with me.
And also OK for me.
Kind regards,
Wim.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [lm-sensors] [PATCH] hwmon/sch56xx: Depend on watchdog for watchdog core functions
@ 2012-06-06 10:29 ` Wim Van Sebroeck
0 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: Wim Van Sebroeck @ 2012-06-06 10:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Guenter Roeck
Cc: Jean Delvare, Hans de Goede, linux-next, linux-watchdog, LM Sensors
Hi All,
> > > Now that we've a common watchdog core, I would also like to convert the
> > > fschmd watchdog code to it (one of these days). Which raises the question
> > > through which tree should that conversion go in. fschmd is primarily a hwmon
> > > driver, but the changes will only touch the watchdog part...
> > >
> > > I guess it would be best to get the conversion in to Wim's tree, even though
> > > that slightly increases the chance of conflicts. The fschmd driver does not see
> > > a lot of churn, and I think Wim is a better reviewer for watchdog related
> > > patches :)
> >
> > Chances of conflicts are so thin, I vote for getting it through Wim's
> > watchdog tree.
> >
> Ok with me.
And also OK for me.
Kind regards,
Wim.
_______________________________________________
lm-sensors mailing list
lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org
http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2012-06-06 10:29 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2012-05-24 20:18 [PATCH] hwmon/sch56xx: Depend on watchdog for watchdog core functions Hans de Goede
2012-05-24 20:18 ` [lm-sensors] " Hans de Goede
2012-05-24 20:54 ` Wim Van Sebroeck
2012-05-24 20:54 ` [lm-sensors] " Wim Van Sebroeck
2012-05-29 16:11 ` Guenter Roeck
2012-05-29 16:11 ` Guenter Roeck
2012-05-29 17:24 ` Wim Van Sebroeck
2012-05-29 17:24 ` Wim Van Sebroeck
2012-05-29 17:24 ` Wim Van Sebroeck
2012-06-01 13:37 ` [lm-sensors] " Hans de Goede
2012-06-01 13:37 ` Hans de Goede
2012-06-01 14:06 ` Jean Delvare
2012-06-01 14:06 ` Jean Delvare
2012-06-01 15:25 ` Guenter Roeck
2012-06-01 15:25 ` Guenter Roeck
2012-06-06 10:29 ` Wim Van Sebroeck
2012-06-06 10:29 ` Wim Van Sebroeck
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.