Pavel Emelyanov wrote:
> I have noticed, that one hunk was lost and one duplicated
> during merging the fix-potential-oops-in-generic_setlease(-xxx)
> patches. One of the fixes is already in the hot-fixes, but the
> second one is still lost.
>
> The returned pointer was not the one allocated, bu
Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 11:57:45 +0400 Pavel Emelyanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I have noticed, that one hunk was lost and one duplicated
>> during merging the fix-potential-oops-in-generic_setlease(-xxx)
>> patches. One of the fixes is already in the hot-fixes, but the
On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 11:57:45 +0400 Pavel Emelyanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have noticed, that one hunk was lost and one duplicated
> during merging the fix-potential-oops-in-generic_setlease(-xxx)
> patches. One of the fixes is already in the hot-fixes, but the
> second one is still lost.
I have noticed, that one hunk was lost and one duplicated
during merging the fix-potential-oops-in-generic_setlease(-xxx)
patches. One of the fixes is already in the hot-fixes, but the
second one is still lost.
The returned pointer was not the one allocated, but some temporary
used to scan throu
4 matches
Mail list logo