>>> On 02.05.18 at 17:06, wrote:
> On 05/02/2018 04:26 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 01.05.18 at 14:34, wrote:
>>> On 05/01/2018 04:00 AM, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 12:23:39PM -0400, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> And without it we can't use _BOOT_XX macros any longer so
On 05/02/2018 04:26 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 01.05.18 at 14:34, wrote:
>> On 05/01/2018 04:00 AM, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
>>> On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 12:23:39PM -0400, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
And without it we can't use _BOOT_XX macros any longer so define new ones.
>>> Not being that fam
>>> On 01.05.18 at 14:34, wrote:
> On 05/01/2018 04:00 AM, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 12:23:39PM -0400, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>>> And without it we can't use _BOOT_XX macros any longer so define new ones.
>>
>> Not being that familiar with Linux internals I'm not sure I se
>>> On 30.04.18 at 18:23, wrote:
> And without it we can't use _BOOT_XX macros any longer so define new ones.
Ah, here we go. Perhaps this should be moved earlier in the series?
Assuming you really want to go this route in the first place, taking
Roger's comment into consideration.
Jan
On 05/01/2018 04:00 AM, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 12:23:39PM -0400, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
And without it we can't use _BOOT_XX macros any longer so define new ones.
Not being that familiar with Linux internals I'm not sure I see the
benefit of this. Isn't there a risk t
On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 12:23:39PM -0400, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> And without it we can't use _BOOT_XX macros any longer so define new ones.
Not being that familiar with Linux internals I'm not sure I see the
benefit of this. Isn't there a risk that some other code is going to
use the __BOOT_XX d
6 matches
Mail list logo
