Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list netdev); Sun, 10 Apr 2005 08:08:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx01.cybersurf.com (mx01.cybersurf.com [209.197.145.104])
	by oss.sgi.com (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j3AF8XVo024954
	for <netdev@oss.sgi.com>; Sun, 10 Apr 2005 08:08:33 -0700
Received: from mail.cyberus.ca ([209.197.145.21])
	by mx01.cybersurf.com with esmtp (Exim 4.30)
	id 1DKe31-0004ET-1r
	for netdev@oss.sgi.com; Sun, 10 Apr 2005 09:08:27 -0600
Received: from cpe0030ab124d2f-cm014500000962.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com ([24.103.99.32] helo=[10.0.0.9])
	by mail.cyberus.ca with esmtp (Exim 4.20)
	id 1DKe2y-0005h1-I0; Sun, 10 Apr 2005 11:08:24 -0400
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: connector is missing in 2.6.12-rc2-mm1]
From: jamal <hadi@cyberus.ca>
Reply-To: hadi@cyberus.ca
To: James Morris <jmorris@redhat.com>
Cc: johnpol@2ka.mipt.ru, Thomas Graf <tgraf@suug.ch>,
        Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@vrfy.org>,
        Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>, ijc@hellion.org.uk,
        guillaume.thouvenin@bull.net, greg@kroah.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@osdl.org,
        netdev <netdev@oss.sgi.com>
In-Reply-To: <Xine.LNX.4.44.0504101055470.8507-100000@thoron.boston.redhat.com>
References: 
	 <Xine.LNX.4.44.0504101055470.8507-100000@thoron.boston.redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Organization: jamalopolous
Message-Id: <1113145700.1088.324.camel@jzny.localdomain>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.2 
Date: 10 Apr 2005 11:08:21 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.83/816/Fri Apr  8 17:46:45 2005 on oss.sgi.com
X-Virus-Status: Clean
X-archive-position: 1639
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com
Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com
X-original-sender: hadi@cyberus.ca
Precedence: bulk
X-list: netdev
Content-Length: 565
Lines: 18

On Sun, 2005-04-10 at 10:56, James Morris wrote:
> On 10 Apr 2005, jamal wrote:
> 
> > Thats what the original motivation for konnector was. To make it easy
> > for joe dumbass.
> 
> Who you really want writing kernel code :-)

Ok, let me take that back then ;->
The value is in allowing people who are kernel hackers that are trying
to focus on an entirely different problem to not really know much about
the internals of the messaging subsystem (if you wanna call netlink
that). A good example will be the fork patches which were posted
recently.

cheers,
jamal