On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 11:03:45AM +0800, Zhao, Gang wrote:
On Wed, 2014-02-19 at 19:43:15 +0800, One Thousand Gnomes wrote:
On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 09:14:19 +0800
Zhao\, Gang gamer...@gmail.com wrote:
Alan, thanks for resending this patch. But it seems you overlooked
something we discussed
On Thu, 2014-02-20 at 17:03:39 +0800, Dan Carpenter wrote:
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 11:03:45AM +0800, Zhao, Gang wrote:
On Wed, 2014-02-19 at 19:43:15 +0800, One Thousand Gnomes wrote:
On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 09:14:19 +0800
Zhao\, Gang gamer...@gmail.com wrote:
Alan, thanks for resending this
On Wed, 2014-02-19 at 19:43:15 +0800, One Thousand Gnomes wrote:
On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 09:14:19 +0800
Zhao\, Gang gamer...@gmail.com wrote:
Alan, thanks for resending this patch. But it seems you overlooked
something we discussed earlier.
On Mon, 2014-02-17 at 22:13:08 +0800, Alan wrote:
Alan, thanks for resending this patch. But it seems you overlooked
something we discussed earlier.
On Mon, 2014-02-17 at 22:13:08 +0800, Alan wrote:
We should check the ring allocations don't fail.
If we get a fail we need to clean up properly. The allocator assumes the
deallocator will be
On Fri, 7 Feb 2014 09:15:40 +
Mark Einon mark.ei...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 09:56:41PM +0800, Zhao, Gang wrote:
@@ -2124,7 +2124,11 @@ static int et131x_rx_dma_memory_alloc(struct
et131x_adapter *adapter)
/* Alloc memory for the lookup table */
add Cc to devel mailing list
On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 19:56:19 +0800, Alan wrote:
We should check the ring allocations don't fail.
If we get a fail we need to clean up properly. The allocator assumes the
deallocator will be used on failure, but it isn't. Fix this and add a
missing check against
