On Fri, May 14, 2021 at 10:27 AM David Rowley wrote:
>
> Thanks for the votes. Pushed.
Thanks!
Regards,
Greg Nancarrow
Fujitsu Australia
On Fri, 14 May 2021 at 00:27, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 13, 2021 at 08:06:18PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > On Thu, May 13, 2021 at 08:20:36PM +1200, David Rowley wrote:
> > > Since there's no bug fix here, I thought that there's not much point
> > > in backpatching this.
> >
> >
On Thu, May 13, 2021 at 08:06:18PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, May 13, 2021 at 08:20:36PM +1200, David Rowley wrote:
> > Since there's no bug fix here, I thought that there's not much point
> > in backpatching this.
>
> Indeed. I would not bother with a back-patch either.
>
> > Does
On Thu, May 13, 2021 at 08:20:36PM +1200, David Rowley wrote:
> Since there's no bug fix here, I thought that there's not much point
> in backpatching this.
Indeed. I would not bother with a back-patch either.
> Does anyone object to making this small change in master?
No objections from here.
On Mon, 10 May 2021 at 23:49, David Rowley wrote:
>
> On Mon, 10 May 2021 at 21:16, Greg Nancarrow wrote:
> > During debugging I noticed some code in ExecResult() where a WHILE
> > loop is being used with an unconditional RETURN at the end of the
> > block (which is intentional, looking at the hi
On Mon, 10 May 2021 at 21:16, Greg Nancarrow wrote:
> During debugging I noticed some code in ExecResult() where a WHILE
> loop is being used with an unconditional RETURN at the end of the
> block (which is intentional, looking at the history of changes), but
> now there's no actual use of the loo
Hi,
During debugging I noticed some code in ExecResult() where a WHILE
loop is being used with an unconditional RETURN at the end of the
block (which is intentional, looking at the history of changes), but
now there's no actual use of the loop in any way. The code should
probably be changed to jus
