On 26 March 2013 07:17, Greg KH wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 10:31:22AM +0900, Damian Hobson-Garcia wrote:
>> Until recently uio_get_minor() returned 0 for success and
>> a negative value on failure. This became non-negative for suceess and
>> negative for failure. Restore the original
On 26 March 2013 07:17, Greg KH gre...@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 10:31:22AM +0900, Damian Hobson-Garcia wrote:
Until recently uio_get_minor() returned 0 for success and
a negative value on failure. This became non-negative for suceess and
negative for failure.
On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 10:31:22AM +0900, Damian Hobson-Garcia wrote:
> Until recently uio_get_minor() returned 0 for success and
> a negative value on failure. This became non-negative for suceess and
> negative for failure. Restore the original return value spec so that we can
> successfully
Until recently uio_get_minor() returned 0 for success and
a negative value on failure. This became non-negative for suceess and
negative for failure. Restore the original return value spec so that we can
successfully initialize UIO devices with a non-zero minor device
number.
Signed-off-by:
Until recently uio_get_minor() returned 0 for success and
a negative value on failure. This became non-negative for suceess and
negative for failure. Restore the original return value spec so that we can
successfully initialize UIO devices with a non-zero minor device
number.
Signed-off-by:
On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 10:31:22AM +0900, Damian Hobson-Garcia wrote:
Until recently uio_get_minor() returned 0 for success and
a negative value on failure. This became non-negative for suceess and
negative for failure. Restore the original return value spec so that we can
successfully
6 matches
Mail list logo