Hi Kishon,
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 7:58 PM, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote:
> Hi Vivek,
>
> On Wednesday 20 November 2013 09:14 PM, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Wednesday 20 November 2013 03:02 PM, Vivek Gautam wrote:
>>> On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 2:34 PM, Kishon Vijay Abraham I
>>
On Tue, Dec 03, 2013 at 04:28:30AM +, Al Viro wrote:
> These should be safe, but damnit, we really need the lifecycle documented for
> all objects - the above is only a part of it (note that for e.g. superblocks
> we have additional rules re "->s_active can't be incremented for any reason
> on
Hi Linus,
Here are som pin control fixes for the v3.13 series. Nothing special really,
we have a calm cycle this time it seems, all the action is in GPIO. Details
are in the signed tag as usual.
Anyway, please pull it in!
Yours,
Linus Walleij
The following changes since commit 6ce4eac1f600b34f
On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 01:14:56PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> The lock we're moving up isn't the lock that actually protects the
> whole allocation logic (it's the lock that then protects the pipe
> contents when a pipe is *used*). So it's a useless lock, and moving it
> up is a good idea rega
On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 03:50:24PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Em Tue, Dec 03, 2013 at 02:09:42PM +0100, Jiri Olsa escreveu:
> > Adding udis86 disassembler feature check which support
> > is needed for kvm:kvm_emulate_insn tracepoint.
> >
> > +$(call feature_check,udis86)
> > +ifeq (
On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 06:09:33PM +, Serban Constantinescu wrote:
> +static void bc_dead_binder_done(struct binder_proc *proc,
> + struct binder_thread *thread, void __user *cookie)
> +{
> + struct binder_work *w;
> + struct binder_ref_death *death = NULL;
> +
> + l
801 - 806 of 806 matches
Mail list logo
