On 16 March 2017 at 05:11, Eric Anholt wrote:
> Greg KH writes:
>
>> On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 03:32:56PM +, Dave Stevenson wrote:
>>> You've got a reason. It's GPLv2 licenced code so I have no control
>>> over what happens to it.
>>> Everywhere I have worked, when a patch has issues it is bett
Greg KH writes:
> On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 03:32:56PM +, Dave Stevenson wrote:
>> You've got a reason. It's GPLv2 licenced code so I have no control
>> over what happens to it.
>> Everywhere I have worked, when a patch has issues it is better to "-1"
>> to stop/delay the merge even (or particu
On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 03:32:56PM +, Dave Stevenson wrote:
> You've got a reason. It's GPLv2 licenced code so I have no control
> over what happens to it.
> Everywhere I have worked, when a patch has issues it is better to "-1"
> to stop/delay the merge even (or particularly) on your own patch
Ah. Very good. Thanks.
I can understand why you're annoyed.
Part of the problem and miscommunication seems to have two email lists
and two upstreams. You're refering to the out of tree module as
downstream but really if we're applying fixes there instead of to the
kernel then it's an upstream.
Hi Dave,
Am 15.03.2017 um 16:32 schrieb Dave Stevenson:
> Full description:
> mmal_vchiq is reimplementing parts of the userside MMAL library in kernel
> space.
> The expected behaviour of port_parameter_get is that it takes the size
> of storage for the parameter value, and returns the amount ac
On 15 March 2017 at 10:36, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 10:06:11AM +, Dave Stevenson wrote:
>> On 15 March 2017 at 05:08, Greg KH wrote:
>> > On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 03:32:43PM +, Dave Stevenson wrote:
>> >> NACK.
>> >> Phil asked for a couple of changes, although functi
On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 10:06:11AM +, Dave Stevenson wrote:
> On 15 March 2017 at 05:08, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 03:32:43PM +, Dave Stevenson wrote:
> >> NACK.
> >> Phil asked for a couple of changes, although functionally identical.
> >> I'll send a patch when I get a c
On 15 March 2017 at 05:08, Greg KH wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 03:32:43PM +, Dave Stevenson wrote:
>> NACK.
>> Phil asked for a couple of changes, although functionally identical.
>> I'll send a patch when I get a chance.
>
> What do you mean, "when I get a chance"? What's wrong with thi
On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 03:32:43PM +, Dave Stevenson wrote:
> NACK.
> Phil asked for a couple of changes, although functionally identical.
> I'll send a patch when I get a chance.
What do you mean, "when I get a chance"? What's wrong with this one?
> Your existing workaround has removed the
NACK.
Phil asked for a couple of changes, although functionally identical.
I'll send a patch when I get a chance.
Your existing workaround has removed the immediate issue of the
overflow, this was only cleaning things up to actually match the
original API.
Dave
On 14 March 2017 at 15:10, Micha
10 matches
Mail list logo