* Sasha Levin wrote:
> On 02/03/2015 06:26 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Sasha Levin wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Ingo,
> >>
> >> Two fixes for liblockdep. One prevents git from trying to track the
> >> generated
> >> .so libraries, and the other avoids mixups with header files when building
> >> l
On 02/03/2015 06:26 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Sasha Levin wrote:
>
>> Hi Ingo,
>>
>> Two fixes for liblockdep. One prevents git from trying to track the generated
>> .so libraries, and the other avoids mixups with header files when building
>> liblockdep inside a kernel tree that doesn't matc
* Sasha Levin wrote:
> Hi Ingo,
>
> Two fixes for liblockdep. One prevents git from trying to track the generated
> .so libraries, and the other avoids mixups with header files when building
> liblockdep inside a kernel tree that doesn't match the one being currently
> used in the system.
>
>
Hi Ingo,
Two fixes for liblockdep. One prevents git from trying to track the generated
.so libraries, and the other avoids mixups with header files when building
liblockdep inside a kernel tree that doesn't match the one being currently
used in the system.
The following changes since commit ec6f
* Sasha Levin wrote:
> Hi Ingo,
>
> A small (but important) fix to the way we detect freeing live locks. We would
> pass a wrong memory region when testing for locks inside freed memory spaces,
> which would trigger false positives.
>
>
> Thanks,
> Sasha
>
> The following changes since commi
Hi Ingo,
A small (but important) fix to the way we detect freeing live locks. We would
pass a wrong memory region when testing for locks inside freed memory spaces,
which would trigger false positives.
Thanks,
Sasha
The following changes since commit b2776bf7149bddd1f4161f14f79520f17fc1d71d:
6 matches
Mail list logo