Hi,
On 01/06/17 12:14, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 01.06.17 at 13:06, wrote:
On 31/05/17 08:51, Jan Beulich wrote:
While f32400e90c ("x86: fix build with gcc 7")'s change to
compat_array_access_ok() is necessary, I had blindly and needlessly
also added it to array_access_ok(). There's no conditiona
>>> On 01.06.17 at 13:06, wrote:
> On 31/05/17 08:51, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> While f32400e90c ("x86: fix build with gcc 7")'s change to
>> compat_array_access_ok() is necessary, I had blindly and needlessly
>> also added it to array_access_ok(). There's no conditional expression
>> involved there,
Hi Jan,
On 31/05/17 08:51, Jan Beulich wrote:
While f32400e90c ("x86: fix build with gcc 7")'s change to
compat_array_access_ok() is necessary, I had blindly and needlessly
also added it to array_access_ok(). There's no conditional expression
involved there, so undo it.
Signed-off-by: Jan Beuli
On 31/05/17 08:51, Jan Beulich wrote:
> While f32400e90c ("x86: fix build with gcc 7")'s change to
> compat_array_access_ok() is necessary, I had blindly and needlessly
> also added it to array_access_ok(). There's no conditional expression
> involved there, so undo it.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jan Beuli
While f32400e90c ("x86: fix build with gcc 7")'s change to
compat_array_access_ok() is necessary, I had blindly and needlessly
also added it to array_access_ok(). There's no conditional expression
involved there, so undo it.
Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich
---
No ARM counterpart, as Julien means to re
