On Sun, Sep 01, 2013 at 06:24:39PM -0700, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 02:11:39PM +0900, Simon Horman wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 01:40:17PM -0700, Jarno Rajahalme wrote:
> > > Also, since all kinds of groups can refer to other groups, there is no
> > > reason to delete indirec
On Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 02:11:39PM +0900, Simon Horman wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 01:40:17PM -0700, Jarno Rajahalme wrote:
> > Also, since all kinds of groups can refer to other groups, there is no
> > reason to delete indirect groups first.
>
> This seems reasonable to me, but its not clear
On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 01:40:17PM -0700, Jarno Rajahalme wrote:
> Also, since all kinds of groups can refer to other groups, there is no
> reason to delete indirect groups first.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jarno Rajahalme
I folded this in, thanks.
I've now added you as a co-author, also.
_
On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 01:40:17PM -0700, Jarno Rajahalme wrote:
> Also, since all kinds of groups can refer to other groups, there is no
> reason to delete indirect groups first.
This seems reasonable to me, but its not clear to me
how the code prevents the deletion of groups that
are still refer
