On Saturday 15 December 2012 19:25:40 Hans J. Koch wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 11:33:50AM +0200, Vitalii Demianets wrote:
> > Hans, why do you want to put in this patch, which is dealing with
> > memory-freeing issues only, completely unrelated functional changes?
>
> Because during review of
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 11:33:50AM +0200, Vitalii Demianets wrote:
>
> Hans, why do you want to put in this patch, which is dealing with
> memory-freeing issues only, completely unrelated functional changes?
Because during review of your patch we happened to find another issue
a few lines up and
On Thursday 13 December 2012 20:13:54 Hans J. Koch wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 11:44:45AM +0200, Vitalii Demianets wrote:
> > 1. uioinfo was kfreed based on the presence of pdev->dev.of_node, which
> > was obviously wrong and unrelated to the fact if uioinfo was allocated
> > statically or dyn
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 11:44:45AM +0200, Vitalii Demianets wrote:
> 1. uioinfo was kfreed based on the presence of pdev->dev.of_node, which was
> obviously wrong and unrelated to the fact if uioinfo was allocated statically
> or dynamically. This patch introduces new flag which clearly shows if ui
1. uioinfo was kfreed based on the presence of pdev->dev.of_node, which was
obviously wrong and unrelated to the fact if uioinfo was allocated statically
or dynamically. This patch introduces new flag which clearly shows if uioinfo
was allocated dynamically and kfrees uioinfo based on that flag;
2.
5 matches
Mail list logo