On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 10:14:46AM -0300, Emilio López wrote:
> On 09/09/15 01:12, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> >On 09/08/2015 08:58 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> >>On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 06:10:16PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> >>>Hi Emilio,
> >>>
> >>>On 09/08/2015 05:51 PM, Emilio López wrote:
> Hi Greg &
On 09/09/2015 06:14 AM, Emilio López wrote:
On 09/09/15 01:12, Guenter Roeck wrote:
On 09/08/2015 08:58 PM, Greg KH wrote:
On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 06:10:16PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
Hi Emilio,
On 09/08/2015 05:51 PM, Emilio López wrote:
Hi Greg & Guenter,
[ ... ]
Unless I am missing
On 09/09/15 01:12, Guenter Roeck wrote:
On 09/08/2015 08:58 PM, Greg KH wrote:
On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 06:10:16PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
Hi Emilio,
On 09/08/2015 05:51 PM, Emilio López wrote:
Hi Greg & Guenter,
[ ... ]
Unless I am missing something, this is not explained anywhere,
bu
On 09/08/2015 08:58 PM, Greg KH wrote:
On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 06:10:16PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
Hi Emilio,
On 09/08/2015 05:51 PM, Emilio López wrote:
Hi Greg & Guenter,
[ ... ]
Unless I am missing something, this is not explained anywhere, but it is
not entirely trivial to understan
On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 06:10:16PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> Hi Emilio,
>
> On 09/08/2015 05:51 PM, Emilio López wrote:
> >Hi Greg & Guenter,
> >
> [ ... ]
>
> Unless I am missing something, this is not explained anywhere, but it is
> not entirely trivial to understand. I think it
Hi Emilio,
On 09/08/2015 05:51 PM, Emilio López wrote:
Hi Greg & Guenter,
[ ... ]
Unless I am missing something, this is not explained anywhere, but it is
not entirely trivial to understand. I think it should be documented.
I agree. I couldn't find any mention of what this int was supposed
Hi Greg & Guenter,
On 08/09/15 16:30, Guenter Roeck wrote:
On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 12:10:02PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 08:30:13AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
Emilio,
On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 09:07:44AM -0300, Emilio López wrote:
According to the sysfs header file:
"
On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 12:10:02PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 08:30:13AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > Emilio,
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 09:07:44AM -0300, Emilio López wrote:
> > > According to the sysfs header file:
> > >
> > > "The returned value will replace st
On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 08:30:13AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> Emilio,
>
> On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 09:07:44AM -0300, Emilio López wrote:
> > According to the sysfs header file:
> >
> > "The returned value will replace static permissions defined in
> > struct attribute or struct bin_att
Emilio,
On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 09:07:44AM -0300, Emilio López wrote:
> According to the sysfs header file:
>
> "The returned value will replace static permissions defined in
> struct attribute or struct bin_attribute."
>
> but this isn't the case, as is_visible is only called on
> stru
According to the sysfs header file:
"The returned value will replace static permissions defined in
struct attribute or struct bin_attribute."
but this isn't the case, as is_visible is only called on
struct attribute only. This patch adds the code paths required
to support is_visible() on
11 matches
Mail list logo
