On 1/26/25 10:49 PM, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
[...]
Also, I think I'd prefer if double cyclic_register() is allowed and
always succeeds; this could be used to change the period of an already
registered instance, for example.
This would be terribly overloaded interface, no, let's not do that.
On Sat, Jan 25 2025, Marek Vasut wrote:
> On 1/20/25 10:17 AM, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
>> On Sat, Jan 18 2025, Marek Vasut wrote:
>>
>>> Make cyclic_register() return error code, 0 in case of success,
>>> -EALREADY in case the called attempts to re-register already
>>> registered struct cyclic_
On 1/22/25 10:25 AM, Stefan Roese wrote:
Hi Marek,
Hi Rasmus,
On 20.01.25 10:17, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
On Sat, Jan 18 2025, Marek Vasut wrote:
Make cyclic_register() return error code, 0 in case of success,
-EALREADY in case the called attempts to re-register already
registered struct cycl
On 1/20/25 10:17 AM, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
On Sat, Jan 18 2025, Marek Vasut wrote:
Make cyclic_register() return error code, 0 in case of success,
-EALREADY in case the called attempts to re-register already
registered struct cyclic_info. The re-registration would lead
to corruption of gd->c
Hi Marek,
Hi Rasmus,
On 20.01.25 10:17, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
On Sat, Jan 18 2025, Marek Vasut wrote:
Make cyclic_register() return error code, 0 in case of success,
-EALREADY in case the called attempts to re-register already
registered struct cyclic_info. The re-registration would lead
to
On Sat, Jan 18 2025, Marek Vasut wrote:
> Make cyclic_register() return error code, 0 in case of success,
> -EALREADY in case the called attempts to re-register already
> registered struct cyclic_info. The re-registration would lead
> to corruption of gd->cyclic_list because the re-registration
>
6 matches
Mail list logo
