As a tangential party, I am a bit curious: does the randomization
plugin result in a compact structure? I ask because I know many/most
programmers don't bother with it and so doing so ought to make the
data more compact.
On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 3:47 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
>> how is the code to be v
>
> "{ NULL }" is valid ISO C, but unfortunately "{}" is not.
Just make the thing "static const" and don't use an initializer.
___
devel mailing list
de...@linuxdriverproject.org
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 8:22 AM, James Simmons
>> --- a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/ldlm/ldlm_flock.c
>> +++ b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/ldlm/ldlm_flock.c
>> @@ -143,7 +143,7 @@ static int ldlm_process_flock_lock(struct ldlm_lock
>> *req, __u64 *flags,
>> int added = (mode == LCK_NL);
On 04/27/16 15:20, James Simmons wrote:
From: Bruce Korb
Convert most of the ldlm lock's l_flags references from direct
bit twiddling to using bit specific macros. A few multi-bit
operations are left as an exercise for the reader.
The changes are mostly in ldlm, but also in llite, osc
