On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 09:11:59AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 05:46:12PM +0200, Nicholas Mc Guire wrote:
> > rcu_cpu_has_callbacks() is declared int but is actually returning bool
> > and as the function description states " * Return true if the specified
> > CPU has
On Mon, 11 May 2015, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Mon, 11 May 2015 17:45:10 +0200
> Nicholas Mc Guire wrote:
>
> - sorry for being so complicated.
>
> Nah, we are the ones being complicated.
>
> > had been putting config info below in all patches - and in git log I do
> > not see that
On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 05:46:12PM +0200, Nicholas Mc Guire wrote:
> rcu_cpu_has_callbacks() is declared int but is actually returning bool
> and as the function description states " * Return true if the specified
> CPU has any callback", this probably should be a bool. All (3)
> call-sites
On Mon, 11 May 2015 17:45:10 +0200
Nicholas Mc Guire wrote:
- sorry for being so complicated.
Nah, we are the ones being complicated.
> had been putting config info below in all patches - and in git log I do
> not see that information being included - anyway will move it up and
> resend in a
rcu_cpu_has_callbacks() is declared int but is actually returning bool
and as the function description states " * Return true if the specified
CPU has any callback", this probably should be a bool. All (3)
call-sites currently treat it as bool.
Type-checking coccinelle spatches are being
On Mon, 11 May 2015, Josh Triplett wrote:
> On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 11:28:30AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Mon, 11 May 2015 17:10:59 +0200
> > Nicholas Mc Guire wrote:
> >
> > > rcu_cpu_has_callbacks() is declared int but is actually returning bool and
> > > and as the function
On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 11:28:30AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Mon, 11 May 2015 17:10:59 +0200
> Nicholas Mc Guire wrote:
>
> > rcu_cpu_has_callbacks() is declared int but is actually returning bool and
> > and as the function description states " * Return true if the specified
> > CPU
On Mon, 11 May 2015 17:10:59 +0200
Nicholas Mc Guire wrote:
> rcu_cpu_has_callbacks() is declared int but is actually returning bool and
> and as the function description states " * Return true if the specified
> CPU has any callback", this probably should be a bool. All (3)
> call-sites
rcu_cpu_has_callbacks() is declared int but is actually returning bool and
and as the function description states " * Return true if the specified
CPU has any callback", this probably should be a bool. All (3)
call-sites currently treat it as bool so the declaration.
Signed-off-by:
rcu_cpu_has_callbacks() is declared int but is actually returning bool and
and as the function description states * Return true if the specified
CPU has any callback, this probably should be a bool. All (3)
call-sites currently treat it as bool so the declaration.
Signed-off-by: Nicholas
On Mon, 11 May 2015 17:10:59 +0200
Nicholas Mc Guire hof...@osadl.org wrote:
rcu_cpu_has_callbacks() is declared int but is actually returning bool and
and as the function description states * Return true if the specified
CPU has any callback, this probably should be a bool. All (3)
On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 11:28:30AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Mon, 11 May 2015 17:10:59 +0200
Nicholas Mc Guire hof...@osadl.org wrote:
rcu_cpu_has_callbacks() is declared int but is actually returning bool and
and as the function description states * Return true if the specified
On Mon, 11 May 2015, Josh Triplett wrote:
On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 11:28:30AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Mon, 11 May 2015 17:10:59 +0200
Nicholas Mc Guire hof...@osadl.org wrote:
rcu_cpu_has_callbacks() is declared int but is actually returning bool and
and as the function
On Mon, 11 May 2015, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Mon, 11 May 2015 17:45:10 +0200
Nicholas Mc Guire der.h...@hofr.at wrote:
- sorry for being so complicated.
Nah, we are the ones being complicated.
had been putting config info below in all patches - and in git log I do
not see that
rcu_cpu_has_callbacks() is declared int but is actually returning bool
and as the function description states * Return true if the specified
CPU has any callback, this probably should be a bool. All (3)
call-sites currently treat it as bool.
Type-checking coccinelle spatches are being used
On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 05:46:12PM +0200, Nicholas Mc Guire wrote:
rcu_cpu_has_callbacks() is declared int but is actually returning bool
and as the function description states * Return true if the specified
CPU has any callback, this probably should be a bool. All (3)
call-sites
On Mon, 11 May 2015 17:45:10 +0200
Nicholas Mc Guire der.h...@hofr.at wrote:
- sorry for being so complicated.
Nah, we are the ones being complicated.
had been putting config info below in all patches - and in git log I do
not see that information being included - anyway will move it up and
On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 09:11:59AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 05:46:12PM +0200, Nicholas Mc Guire wrote:
rcu_cpu_has_callbacks() is declared int but is actually returning bool
and as the function description states * Return true if the specified
CPU has any
18 matches
Mail list logo