On Sun, Oct 04, 2015 at 07:33:34PM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 10:38:20AM -0300, Emilio L?pez wrote:
> > According to the sysfs header file:
> >
> > "The returned value will replace static permissions defined in
> > struct attribute or struct bin_attribute."
> >
> >
On Sun, Oct 04, 2015 at 07:33:34PM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 10:38:20AM -0300, Emilio L?pez wrote:
> > According to the sysfs header file:
> >
> > "The returned value will replace static permissions defined in
> > struct attribute or struct bin_attribute."
> >
> >
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 10:38:20AM -0300, Emilio López wrote:
> According to the sysfs header file:
>
> "The returned value will replace static permissions defined in
> struct attribute or struct bin_attribute."
>
> but this isn't the case, as is_visible is only called on struct
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 10:38:20AM -0300, Emilio López wrote:
> According to the sysfs header file:
>
> "The returned value will replace static permissions defined in
> struct attribute or struct bin_attribute."
>
> but this isn't the case, as is_visible is only called on struct
This is v3, even if the subject doesn't say so. This is what happens
when you forget to use --reroll-count and try to fix it manually :)
Emilio
On 21/09/15 10:38, Emilio López wrote:
According to the sysfs header file:
"The returned value will replace static permissions defined in
According to the sysfs header file:
"The returned value will replace static permissions defined in
struct attribute or struct bin_attribute."
but this isn't the case, as is_visible is only called on struct attribute
only. This patch introduces a new is_bin_visible() function to
According to the sysfs header file:
"The returned value will replace static permissions defined in
struct attribute or struct bin_attribute."
but this isn't the case, as is_visible is only called on struct attribute
only. This patch introduces a new is_bin_visible() function to
This is v3, even if the subject doesn't say so. This is what happens
when you forget to use --reroll-count and try to fix it manually :)
Emilio
On 21/09/15 10:38, Emilio López wrote:
According to the sysfs header file:
"The returned value will replace static permissions defined in
8 matches
Mail list logo
