Hi,
> I guess that for such a small path using Savannah's Patch system is a
> waste, right?
Never heard that size doesn't matter?! ;-)
-antrik-
___
Bug-hurd mailing list
Bug-hurd@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd
Update of patch #4398 (project hurd):
Status:None => Done
Assigned to:None => tschwinge
Open/Closed:Open => Closed
___
Hey,
On 1/30/06, Matheus Morais <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Well, you sent me already the patches. As soon as I'll make a
> > repository/site or something for it, I'll put it as a first cleanup of
> > the code. That's what I can do as 'clean up subproject' volunteering
> > leader. If you -- for
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
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
[...] but I have no idea where I must post/show/give/upload these
modifyed files.
For now, just post them here. Anyone who follows MachRevival also
follows the action on GNU Mach. And patches that end up in GNU Mach
will with most certanty end up in MachRevival. MachRevival will
probobly
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
On 1/30/06, Gianluca Guida <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
Hey Gianluca
well bug-hurd is not properly the right place to discuss this, butI'll keep this discussion public in case someone is interested.
The "Revival Project" is quite an informal thing. It has born as a
Sergio Lopez's idea mainly, w
On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 10:53:12AM -0200, Matheus Morais wrote:
> I'm a bit confuse about how mach revival project will work in some aspects.
Me too, so let's try to get this sorted out right now.
http://hurd.gnufans.org/bin/view/Mach/GNUMachRevivalProject> gives a
rough overview about what that
Note that for fixes that are more advanced than adding some casts
to get rid of compile-time warnings or similar, we'd like you to
assign the copyright of your changes to the FSF.
Papers are not needed (but nice to have) for GNU Mach. They are a
must for the Hurd though. Or that is how
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, 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
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.
I'm a bit confuse about how mach revival project will work in some
aspects. I'm on the task to clean up gnumach code and I already made
some progress removing warnings from compile proccess, as gianluca
said, but I have no idea where I must post/show/give/upload these
modifyed files. Maybe I must c
Hi,
well bug-hurd is not properly the right place to discuss this, but
I'll keep this discussion public in case someone is interested.
On 1/30/06, Matheus Morais <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm a bit confuse about how mach revival project will work in some aspects.
The "Revival Project" is quit
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
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'
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
>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
19 matches
Mail list logo
