On Wed, 29 Apr 2015 17:12:21 +0100
Javi Merino wrote:
> Our maintainer missed the merge window (sigh) so the patches that were
> going to use this will have to wait until linux v4.2. So they will be
> users in the future, but there's no need for this to go to stable.
I'll still get this in for
On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 05:06:22PM +0100, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Apr 2015 17:02:50 +0100
> Alex Bennée wrote:
>
> >
> > Steven Rostedt writes:
> >
> > > On Wed, 29 Apr 2015 16:18:46 +0100
> > > Alex Bennée wrote:
> > >
> > >> The only caller to this function (__print_array) was ge
On Wed, 29 Apr 2015 17:02:50 +0100
Alex Bennée wrote:
>
> Steven Rostedt writes:
>
> > On Wed, 29 Apr 2015 16:18:46 +0100
> > Alex Bennée wrote:
> >
> >> The only caller to this function (__print_array) was getting it wrong by
> >> passing the array length instead of buffer length. As the ele
Steven Rostedt writes:
> On Wed, 29 Apr 2015 16:18:46 +0100
> Alex Bennée wrote:
>
>> The only caller to this function (__print_array) was getting it wrong by
>> passing the array length instead of buffer length. As the element size
>> was already being passed for other reasons it seems reasona
On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 04:18:46PM +0100, Alex Bennée wrote:
> The only caller to this function (__print_array) was getting it wrong by
> passing the array length instead of buffer length. As the element size
> was already being passed for other reasons it seems reasonable to push
> the calculation
On Wed, 29 Apr 2015 16:18:46 +0100
Alex Bennée wrote:
> The only caller to this function (__print_array) was getting it wrong by
> passing the array length instead of buffer length. As the element size
> was already being passed for other reasons it seems reasonable to push
> the calculation of b
6 matches
Mail list logo
