Hi!
> > This fixes (part of) u32 vs. pm_message_t confusion in USB. It should
> > cause no code changes. Please apply,
>
> Large portions of this patch are already in my tree (and hence the -mm
> tree.) Care to rediff against the latest -mm and resend the patch?
(Sorry for the delay).
Yes, mos
On Tue, Feb 15, 2005 at 01:39:35AM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> This fixes (part of) u32 vs. pm_message_t confusion in USB. It should
> cause no code changes. Please apply,
Large portions of this patch are already in my tree (and hence the -mm
tree.) Care to rediff against the latest -mm
[Trimmed Cc]
On Tue, Feb 15, 2005 at 11:15:56AM +1100, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> > Well, yes, if you switch pm_message_t into struct. But we are not yet
> > ready to do that... it is going to be typedefed to u32 for 2.6.11...
>
> Ah. So I haven't realised that Bernard took your patches wholesale,
Hi Pavel.
Thanks!
Nigel
--
Nigel Cunningham
Software Engineer, Canberra, Australia
http://www.cyclades.com
Ph: +61 (2) 6292 8028 Mob: +61 (417) 100 574
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo
Hi!
This fixes (part of) u32 vs. pm_message_t confusion in USB. It should
cause no code changes. Please apply,
Pavel
Signed-off-by: Pavel Machek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- clean-mm/drivers/usb/core/hcd-pci.c 2005-02-15 00:34:40.00
Hi!
This fixes u32 vs. pm_message_t in generic code. No code
changes. Please apply,
Pavel
--- clean-mm/Documentation/power/devices.txt2005-02-15 00:34:36.0
+0100
+++ linux-mm/Documentation/power/devices.txt2005-02-1
Hi.
On Tue, 2005-02-15 at 11:15, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > > > I guess I'm wrong then - I thought the other changes avoided compilation
> > > > errors.
> > >
> > > Well, yes, if you switch pm_message_t into struct. But we are not yet
> > > ready to do that... it is going to be typedefed to
Hi!
> > > I guess I'm wrong then - I thought the other changes avoided compilation
> > > errors.
> >
> > Well, yes, if you switch pm_message_t into struct. But we are not yet
> > ready to do that... it is going to be typedefed to u32 for 2.6.11...
>
> Ah. So I haven't realised that Bernard took
Hi.
On Tue, 2005-02-15 at 10:41, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > I guess I'm wrong then - I thought the other changes avoided compilation
> > errors.
>
> Well, yes, if you switch pm_message_t into struct. But we are not yet
> ready to do that... it is going to be typedefed to u32 for 2.6.11...
Ah. So I
Hi!
> > > > > Andrew, if you get one big patch doing only type-safety (u32 ->
> > > > > pm_message_t, no code changes), would you still take it this late? I
> > > > > promise it is not going to break anything... It would help merge
> > > > > after
> > > > > 2.6.11 quite a lot...
> > > >
> > >
Hi.
On Tue, 2005-02-15 at 09:04, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > > > Andrew, if you get one big patch doing only type-safety (u32 ->
> > > > pm_message_t, no code changes), would you still take it this late? I
> > > > promise it is not going to break anything... It would help merge after
> > >
Hi!
> > > Andrew, if you get one big patch doing only type-safety (u32 ->
> > > pm_message_t, no code changes), would you still take it this late? I
> > > promise it is not going to break anything... It would help merge after
> > > 2.6.11 quite a lot...
> >
> > Problem is, such a megapatch cau
Hi Andrew et al.
On Tue, 2005-02-15 at 08:46, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Pavel Machek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Andrew, if you get one big patch doing only type-safety (u32 ->
> > pm_message_t, no code changes), would you still take it this late? I
> > promise it is not going to break anyth
Pavel Machek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Andrew, if you get one big patch doing only type-safety (u32 ->
> pm_message_t, no code changes), would you still take it this late? I
> promise it is not going to break anything... It would help merge after
> 2.6.11 quite a lot...
Problem is, such a
Hi!
> This patch is a conglomeration of about 5 patches that complete (I
> think!) the work of switching over to pm_message_t. Most of this work
> was done by Bernard Blackham, some by me, some by Pavel I think (I was
> out of action for part of the development). I believe it needs to go in
> befo
Hi!
> This patch is a conglomeration of about 5 patches that complete (I
> think!) the work of switching over to pm_message_t. Most of this work
> was done by Bernard Blackham, some by me, some by Pavel I think (I was
> out of action for part of the development). I believe it needs to go in
> befo
16 matches
Mail list logo
