On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 04:42:07 +0100
Christoph Hellwig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 09, 2007 at 03:47:02PM -0700, Kristen Carlson Accardi wrote:
> > fine by me - let's NAK this patch (and all future ones for this driver)
> > until
> > someone with hardware steps up to maintain this dri
On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 01:39:10 +0200
Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As I've wrote in the patch description, all it does is to remove an if()
> check that could never be false (which is easily verifyable if you look
> at the source code).
>
> I've also verified that my patch does not cha
On Thu, Aug 09, 2007 at 03:47:02PM -0700, Kristen Carlson Accardi wrote:
> fine by me - let's NAK this patch (and all future ones for this driver) until
> someone with hardware steps up to maintain this driver. Eventually it
> will just die I guess.
Very bad idea. For example I sent a patch ag
On Thu, Aug 09, 2007 at 04:20:01PM -0700, Kristen Carlson Accardi wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 01:04:36 +0200
> Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Aug 09, 2007 at 03:47:02PM -0700, Kristen Carlson Accardi wrote:
> > >
> > > fine by me - let's NAK this patch (and all future ones
> Silly is in the eye of the beholder. I don't want to take this patch
> because it needs to be reviewed by someone who really knows the intent
> of the driver. Seems silly to me to blindly take patches.
For unmaintained code we usually work on wackipedia theory ("its probably
right but if not w
On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 01:04:36 +0200
Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 09, 2007 at 03:47:02PM -0700, Kristen Carlson Accardi wrote:
> >
> > fine by me - let's NAK this patch (and all future ones for this driver)
> > until
> > someone with hardware steps up to maintain this driv
On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 01:04:36 +0200
Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We have tons of unmaintained drivers and none of them has such a silly
> auto-NAK policy.
>
> cu
> Adrian
Silly is in the eye of the beholder. I don't want to take this patch
because it needs to be reviewed by someone
> fine by me - let's NAK this patch (and all future ones for this driver) until
> someone with hardware steps up to maintain this driver. Eventually it
> will just die I guess.
If you want to NAK it perhaps you should become maintainer ;)
Alan
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "uns
On Thu, Aug 09, 2007 at 03:47:02PM -0700, Kristen Carlson Accardi wrote:
>
> fine by me - let's NAK this patch (and all future ones for this driver) until
> someone with hardware steps up to maintain this driver. Eventually it
> will just die I guess.
We have tons of unmaintained drivers and no
On Thu, 9 Aug 2007 15:24:27 -0700
Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Thu, Aug 09, 2007 at 02:51:40PM -0700, Kristen Carlson Accardi wrote:
> > On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 16:51:05 +0200
> > Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > If !mem_node we did already return -ENOMEM a
On Thu, Aug 09, 2007 at 02:51:40PM -0700, Kristen Carlson Accardi wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 16:51:05 +0200
> Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > If !mem_node we did already return -ENOMEM above in the function.
> >
> > Spotted by the Coverity checker.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Adrian Bu
On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 16:51:05 +0200
Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If !mem_node we did already return -ENOMEM above in the function.
>
> Spotted by the Coverity checker.
>
> Signed-off-by: Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Greg - you are listed as the maintainer for this driver. Can you
If !mem_node we did already return -ENOMEM above in the function.
Spotted by the Coverity checker.
Signed-off-by: Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
drivers/pci/hotplug/cpqphp_ctrl.c | 28 +++-
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
--- linux-2.6.22-rc6-mm
13 matches
Mail list logo
