On Fri, 20 Jan 2017, John Stultz wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 2:46 PM, Nicolas Pitre
> wrote:
> > Just tell me if you prefer that I respin the patch and I'll do it.
>
> Yea. I'm not so finicky but I'm sure I'll probably get yelled at if I
> pass it on, so if you don't mind respinning it, I'
On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 2:46 PM, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Jan 2017, John Stultz wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 10:49 AM, Nicolas Pitre
>> wrote:
>> > When CONFIG_POSIX_TIMERS is disabled, it is preferable to remove related
>> > structures from struct task_struct and struct signal_st
On Fri, 20 Jan 2017, John Stultz wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 10:49 AM, Nicolas Pitre
> wrote:
> > When CONFIG_POSIX_TIMERS is disabled, it is preferable to remove related
> > structures from struct task_struct and struct signal_struct as they
> > won't contain anything useful and shouldn't b
On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 10:49 AM, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> When CONFIG_POSIX_TIMERS is disabled, it is preferable to remove related
> structures from struct task_struct and struct signal_struct as they
> won't contain anything useful and shouldn't be relied upon by mistake.
> Code still referencing t
When CONFIG_POSIX_TIMERS is disabled, it is preferable to remove related
structures from struct task_struct and struct signal_struct as they
won't contain anything useful and shouldn't be relied upon by mistake.
Code still referencing those structures is also disabled here.
Signed-off-by: Nicolas
5 matches
Mail list logo