On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 01:55:21AM +0100, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
>>Are you sure that changing the #ifdef to #if is the right
>>change?
>>
>> Quite, if you have specific concerns that I might have missed
>> then please speak up.
>
>Your patch is potentially a funct
On Tue, 2006-01-31 at 01:55 +0100, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
>>Are you sure that changing the #ifdef to #if is the right
>>change?
>>
>> Quite, if you have specific concerns that I might have missed
>> then please speak up.
>
>Your patch is potentially a functional c
I got it but I mean the patch released by me (the first mail in
this topic) has the same problems than the patch released by ams? I
think they are differents.
They aren't different, mine is simply a cleaner version of yours.
Look at the #if's and you will see why they are equivalent.
__
On 1/31/06, Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This applies to all patches in general, but we use discretion of course.We also take into account our past experiences with the submitter'sattitude and our impression of the submitter's technical aptitude.
Thanks,Marcus
I got it but I mean the
This is applied for the first patch too?
It only applies to perfectly OK patches which some people are simply
to lazy to understand properly.
___
Bug-hurd mailing list
Bug-hurd@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd
On Tue, 2006-01-31 at 09:11 -0200, Matheus Morais wrote:
> On 1/30/06, Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> The patch contains a gratuitous change which
> is not explained. This is sufficient reason for us to not
> consider the
> patch.
>
On 1/30/06, Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The patch contains a gratuitous change whichis not explained. This is sufficient reason for us to not consider thepatch.Thanks,Marcus
This is applied for the first patch too?
Thanks
Matheus Morais
__
>Are you sure that changing the #ifdef to #if is the right
>change?
>
> Quite, if you have specific concerns that I might have missed
> then please speak up.
Your patch is potentially a functional change; not simply a bug fix.
You've defended the addition of CONFIG_BS
Are you sure that changing the #ifdef to #if is the right change?
Quite, if you have specific concerns that I might have missed then
please speak up.
___
Bug-hurd mailing list
Bug-hurd@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd
At Tue, 31 Jan 2006 01:23:02 +0100,
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
>
>Are you sure that changing the #ifdef to #if is the right change?
>
> Quite, if you have specific concerns that I might have missed then
> please speak up.
Your patch is potentially a functional change; not simply a bug fix.
You'
I see why this could cause a possible warning (unused function?), but
I don't see why it does so. Could you show the warning message?
___
Bug-hurd mailing list
Bug-hurd@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd
add_bsd_partition() is only used when MACH _and_ CONFIG_BSD_DISKLABEL
are defined.
2006-01-31 Alfred M. Szmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* linux/dev/drivers/block/genhd.c (add_bsd_partition): Silence
compiler warning. Reported by Matheus Morais
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- genhd.
On 1/30/06, Neal H. Walfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
At Mon, 30 Jan 2006 15:37:53 -0200,Matheus Morais wrote:>> Please review, diff file in attached.Thanks for the contribution. When submitting patches please followthe following conventions: a description of what you are trying to
accomplish an
At Tue, 31 Jan 2006 00:39:39 +0100,
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
> --- genhd.c 20 Jul 1999 20:33:55 +0200 1.4
> +++ genhd.c 31 Jan 2006 00:35:47 +0100
> @@ -111,7 +111,7 @@ static void add_partition (struct gendis
> printk(" %s", disk_name(hd, minor, buf));
> }
>
> -#ifdef MACH
>
On 1/30/06, Alfred M. Szmidt <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I see why this could cause a possible warning (unused function?), butI don't see why it does so. Could you show the warning message
Yes, unsed function, here is the warning:
../../linux/dev/drivers/block/genhd.c:119: warning: `add_bsd_parti
Please review, diff file in attached.
Thanks
Matheus Morais
--- original/gnumach-20050801/linux/dev/drivers/block/genhd.c 1999-07-20 15:33:55.0 -0300
+++ gnumach-20050801/linux/dev/drivers/block/genhd.c 2006-01-30 15:10:23.847883856 -0200
@@ -111,18 +111,6 @@
printk(" %s", disk_nam
At Mon, 30 Jan 2006 15:37:53 -0200,
Matheus Morais wrote:
>
> Please review, diff file in attached.
Thanks for the contribution. When submitting patches please follow
the following conventions: a description of what you are trying to
accomplish and why. In your case, you should have explained w
17 matches
Mail list logo
