Greg --
Thanks for the very quick response.
Greg KH writes:
> This is an obvious one, it needs to be upstream first.
>
> Or if not, a whole lot of explaination saying that you know it
> isn't, and why it isn't, and why it isn't applicable there,
I thought that I did provide exactly this
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 05:19:28PM -0700, Anthony Foiani wrote:
> Greg KH writes:
> > This is not the correct way to submit patches for inclusion in the
> > stable kernel tree. Please read Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt
> > for how to do this properly.
>
> My checklist against
Greg KH writes:
> This is not the correct way to submit patches for inclusion in the
> stable kernel tree. Please read Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt
> for how to do this properly.
My checklist against stable_kernel_rules.txt is below.
I could only find two reasons why you are saying
Greg KH g...@kroah.com writes:
This is not the correct way to submit patches for inclusion in the
stable kernel tree. Please read Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt
for how to do this properly.
My checklist against stable_kernel_rules.txt is below.
I could only find two reasons why you
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 05:19:28PM -0700, Anthony Foiani wrote:
Greg KH g...@kroah.com writes:
This is not the correct way to submit patches for inclusion in the
stable kernel tree. Please read Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt
for how to do this properly.
My checklist against
Greg --
Thanks for the very quick response.
Greg KH g...@kroah.com writes:
This is an obvious one, it needs to be upstream first.
Or if not, a whole lot of explaination saying that you know it
isn't, and why it isn't, and why it isn't applicable there,
I thought that I did provide exactly
On Wed, Nov 07, 2012 at 11:48:24PM -0700, Anthony Foiani wrote:
>
> mtd: check partition count not partition array pointer
>
> The documentation claims that "nr_parts" is the determining factor,
> while the code originally tested whether "parts" is non-null.
>
> In at least one driver
On Wed, Nov 07, 2012 at 11:48:24PM -0700, Anthony Foiani wrote:
mtd: check partition count not partition array pointer
The documentation claims that nr_parts is the determining factor,
while the code originally tested whether parts is non-null.
In at least one driver (fsl_elbc_nand),
mtd: check partition count not partition array pointer
The documentation claims that "nr_parts" is the determining factor,
while the code originally tested whether "parts" is non-null.
In at least one driver (fsl_elbc_nand), parts is never initialized to
0; even though nr_parts is correctly 0,
mtd: check partition count not partition array pointer
The documentation claims that nr_parts is the determining factor,
while the code originally tested whether parts is non-null.
In at least one driver (fsl_elbc_nand), parts is never initialized to
0; even though nr_parts is correctly 0,
10 matches
Mail list logo
