> Who knows what other gremlins like this now live in the tree :-)
>
> There was a similar spot a few lines down, both fixed
> as follows:
Thanks I'll take a harder look over those. My test suite didn't check
them just the main termios ioctls didn't scribble.
> And here is the sparc patch, could
From: Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 23:16:13 +0100
> I don't see a real problem. You aren't using
>
> c_cflags & CBAUD = 0x1000
>
> so that could become BOTHER.
>
> the input bits also appear to be reserved and free ?
Nevermind, I missed how you were doing the n
Alan Cox wrote:
On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 14:41:15 -0700 (PDT)
David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
From: Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 22:11:05 +0100
Firstly some architecture maintainers still haven't updated their
platform for arbitary tty speeds. The kernel is going to
On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 14:41:15 -0700 (PDT)
David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 22:11:05 +0100
>
> > Firstly some architecture maintainers still haven't updated their
> > platform for arbitary tty speeds. The kernel is going to start
From: Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 22:11:05 +0100
> Firstly some architecture maintainers still haven't updated their
> platform for arbitary tty speeds. The kernel is going to start whining
> and issuing warnings on your platform if you don't keep up with the
> programme (i
5 matches
Mail list logo
