On Sat, 9 Dec 2006, Pekka Enberg wrote: > On 12/9/06, Robert P. J. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > no. those two submissions represent two logically different "fixes" > > and i have no intention of combining them. > > Like I said, fixing the order of kcalloc parameters with a follow-up > patch to use kzalloc is just plain stupid. You can ignore my review > comments all you want, but don't expect that bit to be merged. So, > for the record: NAK for that bit of the patch, it should be > converted to kzalloc instead. Thanks.
all right. but it will be amusing if the resulting patch is rejected because it combines two different fixes, won't it? :-) rday - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
