On 2015/3/5 16:47, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> Hard-won personal experience: the more trivial a change is, the more
> likely I am to screw it up in some stupid way.
>
> In other words: no change is too trivial to screw it up.
>
> Corollary: no change is trivial enough to skip testing.
I can't agre
Gonglei writes:
> On 2015/3/4 21:16, Michael Tokarev wrote:
[...]
>> And a much more general solution is to actually test
>> patches before submitting them. You obviously did not
>> test this series, having 3 errors in 9 patches, ie,
>> 1/3 of your patches does not work...
>>
> Apologize earnes
On 2015/3/4 21:16, Michael Tokarev wrote:
> 27.02.2015 10:50, arei.gong...@huawei.com wrote:
> []
>> @@ -565,6 +565,7 @@ static void create_flash(const VirtBoardInfo *vbi)
>> error_report("Could not load ROM image '%s'", bios_name);
>> exit(1);
>> }
>> +g_
27.02.2015 10:50, arei.gong...@huawei.com wrote:
[]
> @@ -565,6 +565,7 @@ static void create_flash(const VirtBoardInfo *vbi)
> error_report("Could not load ROM image '%s'", bios_name);
> exit(1);
> }
> +g_free(fn);
> }
>
> create_one_flash("vir
On 2015/2/28 18:18, Michael Tokarev wrote:
> 28.02.2015 12:59, Gonglei wrote:
>> On 2015/2/28 17:52, Michael Tokarev wrote:
>>> This patch does not apply to current tree.
>>>
>> You meant this one should be accepted by arm tree?
>
> Nope. I mean this patch does not apply to my tree. I found the
>
28.02.2015 12:59, Gonglei wrote:
> On 2015/2/28 17:52, Michael Tokarev wrote:
>> This patch does not apply to current tree.
>>
> You meant this one should be accepted by arm tree?
Nope. I mean this patch does not apply to my tree. I found the
problem -- it is because of "Remove superfluous '\n' a
