On 22 December 2011 10:08, Alexander Best wrote:
>> You don't think changes should be reviewed (that's what I said above, I did
>> not necessarily say it should be reverted)? That's way out in left field if
>> that is what you really think.
>
> no of course not. let's handle it this way:
>
> kee
On Thu Dec 22 11, John Baldwin wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 21, 2011 6:27:54 pm Alexander Best wrote:
> > On Wed Dec 21 11, John Baldwin wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, December 21, 2011 4:52:04 pm Adrian Chadd wrote:
> > > > Erm, why did you do this without first getting clearance from someone
> > >
On Wednesday, December 21, 2011 6:27:54 pm Alexander Best wrote:
> On Wed Dec 21 11, John Baldwin wrote:
> > On Wednesday, December 21, 2011 4:52:04 pm Adrian Chadd wrote:
> > > Erm, why did you do this without first getting clearance from someone
> > > who has the hardware to test it?
> > >
> > >
On Thu Dec 22 11, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 11:27:54PM +, Alexander Best wrote:
> > the commits should stay. after all this is HEAD. this way all developers
> > running HEAD and with the appropriate ath hardware will test the changes. if
> > dim@ really broke somethin
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 11:27:54PM +, Alexander Best wrote:
> the commits should stay. after all this is HEAD. this way all developers
> running HEAD and with the appropriate ath hardware will test the changes. if
> dim@ really broke something, people will notice.
>
> the changes should *not*
On 21 December 2011 15:27, Alexander Best wrote:
>> I agree it should be reviewed, but if you are seriously depending on
>> the fact that the shifted values are beyond the edge of the word boundary
>> and so the result "wraps" to zero, then I'd question the sanity of your code.
>
> i disagree.
>
On Wed Dec 21 11, John Baldwin wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 21, 2011 4:52:04 pm Adrian Chadd wrote:
> > Erm, why did you do this without first getting clearance from someone
> > who has the hardware to test it?
> >
> > Just because it looks obviously wrong to you, doesn't at all mean that
> > i
On 21 December 2011 14:00, John Baldwin wrote:
> I agree it should be reviewed, but if you are seriously depending on
> the fact that the shifted values are beyond the edge of the word boundary
> and so the result "wraps" to zero, then I'd question the sanity of your code.
I agree, but this is a
On Wednesday, December 21, 2011 4:52:04 pm Adrian Chadd wrote:
> Erm, why did you do this without first getting clearance from someone
> who has the hardware to test it?
>
> Just because it looks obviously wrong to you, doesn't at all mean that
> it's "wrong". It's quite possible that the driver _
Erm, why did you do this without first getting clearance from someone
who has the hardware to test it?
Just because it looks obviously wrong to you, doesn't at all mean that
it's "wrong". It's quite possible that the driver _requires_ those
bits to be written to the hardware as 0.
I'd appreciate
Author: dim
Date: Wed Dec 21 17:16:43 2011
New Revision: 228785
URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/228785
Log:
Fix shift overflow problem in sys/dev/ath/ath_hal/ar5210/ar5210_power.c
and sys/dev/ath/ath_hal/ar5211/ar5211_power.c:
sys/dev/ath/ath_hal/ar5210/ar5210_power.c:36:3: war
11 matches
Mail list logo
