On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 03:57:21PM +0530, Sudip Mukherjee wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 01:05:55PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 03:21:28PM +0530, Sudip Mukherjee wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 12:30:03PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > > > I don't think I like th
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 01:05:55PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 03:21:28PM +0530, Sudip Mukherjee wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 12:30:03PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > > I don't think I like these at all. remove_one has always been buggy in
> > > that it removes ev
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 03:21:28PM +0530, Sudip Mukherjee wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 12:30:03PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > I don't think I like these at all. remove_one has always been buggy in
> > that it removes everything. We should fix it to only remove one instead
> > of formalizi
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 12:30:03PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> I don't think I like these at all. remove_one has always been buggy in
> that it removes everything. We should fix it to only remove one instead
> of formalizing the currect terrible behavior.
Its already applied.
I thought after th
I don't think I like these at all. remove_one has always been buggy in
that it removes everything. We should fix it to only remove one instead
of formalizing the currect terrible behavior.
regards,
dan carpenter
___
devel mailing list
de...@linuxdrive
