From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262111AbTLBMET (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Dec 2003 07:04:19 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262114AbTLBMES (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Dec 2003 07:04:18 -0500 Received: from intra.cyclades.com ([64.186.161.6]:1971 "EHLO intra.cyclades.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262111AbTLBMER (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Dec 2003 07:04:17 -0500 Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 09:55:45 -0200 (BRST) From: Marcelo Tosatti X-X-Sender: marcelo@logos.cnet To: Mike Fedyk Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: 2.6 security patches merged? was: Linux 2.4 future In-Reply-To: <20031201233025.GK1566@mis-mike-wstn.matchmail.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 1 Dec 2003, Mike Fedyk wrote: > On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 12:26:01PM -0300, Norberto Bensa wrote: > Content-Description: signed data > > Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > > > during 2.4.24. New drivers will be accept during this period (for example, > > > > If you're going to accept new drivers, accept XFS too (pleeeaaseee :) > > If you're going to do that, then why not accept ACLs for ext2/3 at the same > time, and... > > They're already in 2.6, if you want the features, then upgrade, not stick > with 2.4. Just by using more than one patch, you're accepting the task of > testing code. > > That reminds me, have all of the security patches that went into 2.4 been > forward ported to 2.6 and merged already? Not yet. Chris Wright is looking at this.