On Mon, Jul 03, 2017 at 07:19:21AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
[...]
> >
> > I do try to be as careful as possible with the code -- I don't think I
> > ever broke the hypervisor too badly, if at all, in my recent work. Now
> > I've mostly figured out what you and Andrew like patch-wise. If you
> >
>>> On 03.07.17 at 14:54, wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 03, 2017 at 02:10:03AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >>> On 30.06.17 at 19:01, wrote:
>> > Seeing that bool_t keeps creeping back in new patches I think the only
> solution
>> > is to get rid of bool_t once and for all, as soon as possible.
>>
>> I
On Mon, Jul 03, 2017 at 02:10:03AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 30.06.17 at 19:01, wrote:
> > Seeing that bool_t keeps creeping back in new patches I think the only
> > solution
> > is to get rid of bool_t once and for all, as soon as possible.
>
> I don't fully agree, and considering the
>>> On 30.06.17 at 19:01, wrote:
> Seeing that bool_t keeps creeping back in new patches I think the only
> solution
> is to get rid of bool_t once and for all, as soon as possible.
I don't fully agree, and considering the flood of patches you're
submitting in this area I think I finally need to
On 30/06/17 18:01, Wei Liu wrote:
> Seeing that bool_t keeps creeping back in new patches I think the only
> solution
> is to get rid of bool_t once and for all, as soon as possible.
Patches: 4-13, 16-18
Reviewed-by: Andrew Cooper
Patch 1 still hasn't arrived in my mailbox yet, so review in sh
Seeing that bool_t keeps creeping back in new patches I think the only solution
is to get rid of bool_t once and for all, as soon as possible.
Wei Liu (18):
x86/acpi: use plain bool
x86/apic.c: use plain bool
x86/debug.c: use plain bool
x86/dmi.c: use plain bool
x86/domctl: use plain boo
