On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 03:37:18PM -0500, David Miller wrote:
> And thanks for the heads up about the potential merge issues, I'll watch
> for that.
>
Hi David,
actually I just realized that the patches that will create the conflict
are not yet in net-next, but they are still pending in my queue
On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 01:35:31PM +0100, Sven Eckelmann wrote:
> It is easy to see that
>
> batadv_ogm_packet::tq (u8 255) *
> tq_own (u8 255) *
> tq_asym_penalty (int 134) *
> tq_iface_penalty (int 255)
>
> is outside the range of an signed integer (32 bit). The maximum seen
> h
From: Antonio Quartulli
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 23:01:25 +0800
> this pull request is intended for net.
>
> Two of the fixes included in this patchset prevent a wrong memory
> access - it was triggered when removing an object from a list
> after it was already free'd due to bad reference counting
Hi Andreas,
On Friday 19 February 2016 11:58:47 Andreas Pape wrote:
> Hello Simon,
>
> I'm still working with my IT department to be able to send the patches in
> a way compliant to the documentation provided by Sven. In the meantime I
> reworked the patches, but I am still struggling with the e-
Hello Simon,
I'm still working with my IT department to be able to send the patches in
a way compliant to the documentation provided by Sven. In the meantime I
reworked the patches, but I am still struggling with the e-mail client
issue.
Nevertheless if I apply all the patches I sent earlier (exce
