* Tony Luck wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 12:04 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 17.12.13 at 23:34, "Luck, Tony" wrote:
> >>> No, it hasn't. But I explicitly checked the relevant EFI=n and EFI=y
> >>> cases.
> >>
> >> I pushed your patch into my "next" tree - the robots will notice soon an
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 12:04 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 17.12.13 at 23:34, "Luck, Tony" wrote:
>>> No, it hasn't. But I explicitly checked the relevant EFI=n and EFI=y
>>> cases.
>>
>> I pushed your patch into my "next" tree - the robots will notice soon and
>> send us e-mail if they find a
>>> On 17.12.13 at 23:34, "Luck, Tony" wrote:
>> No, it hasn't. But I explicitly checked the relevant EFI=n and EFI=y
>> cases.
>
> I pushed your patch into my "next" tree - the robots will notice soon and
> send us e-mail if they find any issues.
Thanks, Tony. I'm afraid though that fixing th
> No, it hasn't. But I explicitly checked the relevant EFI=n and EFI=y
> cases.
Jan,
I pushed your patch into my "next" tree - the robots will notice soon and send
us e-mail if they find any issues.
-Tony
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of
>>> On 17.12.13 at 00:04, "Luck, Tony" wrote:
>> Adjust Kconfig and build logic so that the bad dependency gets avoided.
>
> Has this been exposed to a randconfig test robot? Moving cper.c has already
> dropped a few e-mails into my mailbox ... I'm now wary about the corner
> cases.
No, it ha
> Adjust Kconfig and build logic so that the bad dependency gets avoided.
Has this been exposed to a randconfig test robot? Moving cper.c has already
dropped a few e-mails into my mailbox ... I'm now wary about the corner cases.
-Tony
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe
6 matches
Mail list logo