From owner-freebsd-current  Tue Feb 16 20: 0:18 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from cs.rice.edu (cs.rice.edu [128.42.1.30])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBE1A11458
	for <current@freebsd.org>; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 19:59:16 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from alc@cs.rice.edu)
Received: from nonpc.cs.rice.edu (nonpc.cs.rice.edu [128.42.1.219])
	by cs.rice.edu (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id VAA27627;
	Tue, 16 Feb 1999 21:59:15 -0600 (CST)
Received: (from alc@localhost) by nonpc.cs.rice.edu (8.9.2/8.7.3) id VAA03883; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 21:59:15 -0600 (CST)
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 21:59:14 -0600
From: Alan Cox <alc@cs.rice.edu>
To: dyson@iquest.net
Cc: current@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: inode / exec_map interlock ? (follow up)
Message-ID: <19990216215914.A3873@nonpc.cs.rice.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.1i
Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

On Tue, 16 Feb 1999, John S. Dyson wrote:
>
> If we can get ALC to agree, I prefer him to be the first line (but I am
> willing to fill-in and support DG and ALC when needed.)  ...

I am willing.  In the meantime, let's try to cool things down a bit.

	Alan


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message