On Wed 2014-12-10 09:33:09, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 02:50:54PM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > On Tue 2014-12-09 13:20:09, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > > On Tue, Dec 09, 2014 at 07:05:07PM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > > > The situation with variables storing the address of the o
On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 02:50:54PM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
> On Tue 2014-12-09 13:20:09, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 09, 2014 at 07:05:07PM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > > The situation with variables storing the address of the old and new code
> > > is not ideal. One is called "func" a
On Tue 2014-12-09 13:20:09, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 09, 2014 at 07:05:07PM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > The situation with variables storing the address of the old and new code
> > is not ideal. One is called "func" and the other is called "addr".
> > The one is pointer and the other i
On Tue, Dec 09, 2014 at 07:05:07PM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
> The situation with variables storing the address of the old and new code
> is not ideal. One is called "func" and the other is called "addr".
> The one is pointer and the other is unsigned long. It makes sense
> from the point of how th
The situation with variables storing the address of the old and new code
is not ideal. One is called "func" and the other is called "addr".
The one is pointer and the other is unsigned long. It makes sense
from the point of how the values are defined. But it might make problems
to understand the co
5 matches
Mail list logo