Yep, tested on our side, and looks good.
Reviewed-By: George Kyriazis
mailto:george.kyria...@intel.com>>
On Jan 29, 2018, at 9:42 AM, Chuck Atkins
mailto:chuck.atk...@kitware.com>> wrote:
Lgtm, should probably get a rb from Intel though to make sure it doesn't break
anything they're trying t
Lgtm, should probably get a rb from Intel though to make sure it doesn't
break anything they're trying to do.
Tested-by: Chuck Atkins
On Jan 29, 2018 07:09, "Emil Velikov" wrote:
On 22 January 2018 at 17:52, Emil Velikov wrote:
> From: Emil Velikov
>
> With earlier rework the user and provid
On 22 January 2018 at 17:52, Emil Velikov wrote:
> From: Emil Velikov
>
> With earlier rework the user and provider of the symbol are within the
> same binary. Thus there's no point in exporting the function.
>
> Spotted while reviewing patch from Chuck, that nearly added another
> unneeded PUBLI
From: Emil Velikov
With earlier rework the user and provider of the symbol are within the
same binary. Thus there's no point in exporting the function.
Spotted while reviewing patch from Chuck, that nearly added another
unneeded PUBLIC function.
Cc: Chuck Atkins
Cc: Tim Rowley
Fixes: f50aa214
