> > Anybody got a proposed scheme for the case where somebody like myself
> > who is *not* a member of the Maintainer Cabal has looked at a patch, and
> > found a valid show-stopper that's bigger than just whitespace (breaks on
> > 64-bit, locking issues, etc), or other commentary that *should*
On Fri, Sep 07, 2007 at 01:10:54PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Anybody got a proposed scheme for the case where somebody like myself
> who is *not* a member of the Maintainer Cabal has looked at a patch, and
> found a valid show-stopper that's bigger than just whitespace (breaks on
> 64-bit,
On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 12:04:45 EDT, Theodore Tso said:
> This was proposed by Andrew and discussed at the Kernel Summit; the
> basic idea is that it is a formal indication that the person has done
> a *full* review of the patch (a few random comments from the local
> whitespace police don't count),
On Thu, Sep 06, 2007 at 04:37:37PM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> Thanks. I look forward to the explanation of Reviewed-by, what it
> means, and how it differs from Acked-by.
This was proposed by Andrew and discussed at the Kernel Summit; the
basic idea is that it is a formal indication that the pe
* Randy Dunlap ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
[snip]
>
> > +/*
> > + * Sets the probe callback corresponding to one marker.
> > + */
> > +static int set_marker(struct marker_entry **entry,
> > + struct __mark_marker *elem)
> > +{
> > + int ret;
> > + BUG_ON(strcmp((*entry)->name
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 16:37:37 PDT, Randy Dunlap said:
Thanks. I look forward to the explanation of Reviewed-by, what it
means, and how it differs from Acked-by.
As long as you're at it, the only tag *I* seem to need is 'Tested-By:' :)
Yep, and that's a good one IMO
On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 16:37:37 PDT, Randy Dunlap said:
> Thanks. I look forward to the explanation of Reviewed-by, what it
> means, and how it differs from Acked-by.
As long as you're at it, the only tag *I* seem to need is 'Tested-By:' :)
pgppNJ0dzigyz.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Thu, 6 Sep 2007 16:04:29 -0700 Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Thu, 6 Sep 2007 16:00:01 -0700 Randy Dunlap <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 16:07:34 -0400 Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> >
> > > Changelog:
> > > - markers_mutex now nests inside module_mutex rather than the opposite.
>
> On Thu, 6 Sep 2007 16:00:01 -0700 Randy Dunlap <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 16:07:34 -0400 Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>
> > Changelog:
> > - markers_mutex now nests inside module_mutex rather than the opposite.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Mathieu Desnoyers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > R
On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 16:07:34 -0400 Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> Changelog:
> - markers_mutex now nests inside module_mutex rather than the opposite.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mathieu Desnoyers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reviewed-by: Rusty Russell <[EMAIL PRO
The marker activation functions sits in kernel/marker.c. A hash table is used
to keep track of the registered probes and armed markers, so the markers within
a newly loaded module that should be active can be activated at module load
time.
marker_query has been removed. marker_get_first, marker_ge
11 matches
Mail list logo
