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
