On Thu, 2014-02-20 at 17:03:39 +0800, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 11:03:45AM +0800, Zhao, Gang wrote:
>> On Wed, 2014-02-19 at 19:43:15 +0800, One Thousand Gnomes wrote:
>> > On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 09:14:19 +0800
>> > "Zhao\, Gang" wrote:
>> >
>> >> Alan, thanks for resending this
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 11:03:45AM +0800, Zhao, Gang wrote:
> On Wed, 2014-02-19 at 19:43:15 +0800, One Thousand Gnomes wrote:
> > On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 09:14:19 +0800
> > "Zhao\, Gang" wrote:
> >
> >> Alan, thanks for resending this patch. But it seems you overlooked
> >> something we discussed ear
On Wed, 2014-02-19 at 19:43:15 +0800, One Thousand Gnomes wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 09:14:19 +0800
> "Zhao\, Gang" wrote:
>
>> Alan, thanks for resending this patch. But it seems you overlooked
>> something we discussed earlier.
>>
>> On Mon, 2014-02-17 at 22:13:08 +0800, Alan wrote:
>> > We s
On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 09:14:19 +0800
"Zhao\, Gang" wrote:
> Alan, thanks for resending this patch. But it seems you overlooked
> something we discussed earlier.
>
> On Mon, 2014-02-17 at 22:13:08 +0800, Alan wrote:
> > We should check the ring allocations don't fail.
> > If we get a fail we need t
Alan, thanks for resending this patch. But it seems you overlooked
something we discussed earlier.
On Mon, 2014-02-17 at 22:13:08 +0800, Alan wrote:
> We should check the ring allocations don't fail.
> If we get a fail we need to clean up properly. The allocator assumes the
> deallocator will be u
We should check the ring allocations don't fail.
If we get a fail we need to clean up properly. The allocator assumes the
deallocator will be used on failure, but it isn't. Make sure the
right deallocator is always called and add a missing check against
fbr allocation failure.
[v2]: Correct check
6 matches
Mail list logo
