On (Wed) 27 Apr 2011 [17:09:34], Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 12:01:47PM +0530, Amit Shah wrote:
> > On (Wed) 27 Apr 2011 [14:31:29], Rusty Russell wrote:
> > > On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 22:36:10 +0530, Amit Shah
> > > wrote:
> > > > On (Wed) 20 Apr 2011 [07:34:35], Greg KH wrote:
> > > > >
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 12:01:47PM +0530, Amit Shah wrote:
> On (Wed) 27 Apr 2011 [14:31:29], Rusty Russell wrote:
> > On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 22:36:10 +0530, Amit Shah wrote:
> > > On (Wed) 20 Apr 2011 [07:34:35], Greg KH wrote:
> > > > Care to either create this patch, or resend your original one, i
On (Wed) 27 Apr 2011 [14:31:29], Rusty Russell wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 22:36:10 +0530, Amit Shah wrote:
> > On (Wed) 20 Apr 2011 [07:34:35], Greg KH wrote:
> > > Care to either create this patch, or resend your original one, if you
> > > want it applied?
> >
> > Rusty has the other one queue
On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 22:36:10 +0530, Amit Shah wrote:
> On (Wed) 20 Apr 2011 [07:34:35], Greg KH wrote:
> > Care to either create this patch, or resend your original one, if you
> > want it applied?
>
> Rusty has the other one queued. I pinged him about status.
It's merged, but I don't think it
On (Wed) 20 Apr 2011 [07:34:35], Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 06:03:30PM +0530, Amit Shah wrote:
> > On (Mon) 28 Mar 2011 [11:52:05], Milton Miller wrote:
> > > On Fri, 25 Mar 2011 about 14:17:14 +0530, Amit Shah wrote:
> > > > On (Thu) 24 Mar 2011 [08:58:04], Milton Miller wrote:
> > >
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 06:03:30PM +0530, Amit Shah wrote:
> On (Mon) 28 Mar 2011 [11:52:05], Milton Miller wrote:
> > On Fri, 25 Mar 2011 about 14:17:14 +0530, Amit Shah wrote:
> > > On (Thu) 24 Mar 2011 [08:58:04], Milton Miller wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 24 Mar 2011 07:29:58 -, Amit Shah wrote:
On (Mon) 28 Mar 2011 [11:52:05], Milton Miller wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Mar 2011 about 14:17:14 +0530, Amit Shah wrote:
> > On (Thu) 24 Mar 2011 [08:58:04], Milton Miller wrote:
> > > On Thu, 24 Mar 2011 07:29:58 -, Amit Shah wrote:
> > > > hvc_open() can be called without having any backing device.
On Fri, 25 Mar 2011 about 14:17:14 +0530, Amit Shah wrote:
> On (Thu) 24 Mar 2011 [08:58:04], Milton Miller wrote:
> > On Thu, 24 Mar 2011 07:29:58 -, Amit Shah wrote:
> > > hvc_open() can be called without having any backing device. This
> > > results in a call to hvc_kick() which calls wake_
On (Thu) 24 Mar 2011 [08:58:04], Milton Miller wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Mar 2011 07:29:58 -, Amit Shah wrote:
> > hvc_open() can be called without having any backing device. This
> > results in a call to hvc_kick() which calls wake_up_process on a NULL
> > pointer.
>
> How is hvc_open called wit
[removed stable list from discussion]
On Thu, 24 Mar 2011 07:29:58 -, Amit Shah wrote:
> hvc_open() can be called without having any backing device. This
> results in a call to hvc_kick() which calls wake_up_process on a NULL
> pointer.
How is hvc_open called without a hvc_driver registere
hvc_open() can be called without having any backing device. This
results in a call to hvc_kick() which calls wake_up_process on a NULL
pointer. Ensure hvc is initialised by checking for a non-NULL hvc_task
before waking up the hvc thread.
This was found by an autotest run for virtio_console with
11 matches
Mail list logo
