On Fri 2018-03-02 16:15:06, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Fri, 2018-03-02 at 13:51 +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
>
> > BTW: I am not sure who is going to pass this patchset to Linus.
> > If nobody is against, I could eventually do so via printk.git.
>
> Usually Andrew Morton takes care.
> But perhaps
On Fri 2018-03-02 16:15:06, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Fri, 2018-03-02 at 13:51 +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
>
> > BTW: I am not sure who is going to pass this patchset to Linus.
> > If nobody is against, I could eventually do so via printk.git.
>
> Usually Andrew Morton takes care.
> But perhaps
On Fri, 2018-03-02 at 13:51 +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
> BTW: I am not sure who is going to pass this patchset to Linus.
> If nobody is against, I could eventually do so via printk.git.
Usually Andrew Morton takes care.
But perhaps it's a time to unload Andrew in this part at least?
Would you
On Fri, 2018-03-02 at 13:51 +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
> BTW: I am not sure who is going to pass this patchset to Linus.
> If nobody is against, I could eventually do so via printk.git.
Usually Andrew Morton takes care.
But perhaps it's a time to unload Andrew in this part at least?
Would you
On Wed 2018-02-28 12:42:24, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Wed, 2018-02-28 at 11:04 +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > On Tue 2018-02-27 19:35:50, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2018-02-27 at 16:50 +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > Note that it will most likely crash in vprintk_emit() on the line
> >
>
On Wed 2018-02-28 12:42:24, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Wed, 2018-02-28 at 11:04 +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > On Tue 2018-02-27 19:35:50, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2018-02-27 at 16:50 +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > Note that it will most likely crash in vprintk_emit() on the line
> >
>
+Cc: Pantelis, author of %pOF extension
(I leave a lot of the message from Petr to give you a bit of context)
On Wed, 2018-02-28 at 11:04 +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
> On Tue 2018-02-27 19:35:50, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Tue, 2018-02-27 at 16:50 +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > > On Fri
+Cc: Pantelis, author of %pOF extension
(I leave a lot of the message from Petr to give you a bit of context)
On Wed, 2018-02-28 at 11:04 +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
> On Tue 2018-02-27 19:35:50, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Tue, 2018-02-27 at 16:50 +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > > On Fri
On Wed, 2018-02-28 at 11:04 +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
> On Tue 2018-02-27 19:35:50, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Tue, 2018-02-27 at 16:50 +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > > On Fri 2018-02-16 23:07:10, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> > > This macro matches also values <= 16.
> >
> > Yes, I
On Wed, 2018-02-28 at 11:04 +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
> On Tue 2018-02-27 19:35:50, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Tue, 2018-02-27 at 16:50 +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > > On Fri 2018-02-16 23:07:10, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> > > This macro matches also values <= 16.
> >
> > Yes, I
On Wed, 2018-02-28 at 11:04 +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
> On Tue 2018-02-27 19:35:50, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Tue, 2018-02-27 at 16:50 +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > > On Fri 2018-02-16 23:07:10, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > The pointer can't be NULL since it's first what has been done in
> >
On Wed, 2018-02-28 at 11:04 +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
> On Tue 2018-02-27 19:35:50, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Tue, 2018-02-27 at 16:50 +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > > On Fri 2018-02-16 23:07:10, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > The pointer can't be NULL since it's first what has been done in
> >
On Tue 2018-02-27 19:35:50, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Tue, 2018-02-27 at 16:50 +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > On Fri 2018-02-16 23:07:10, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > The pointer can't be NULL since it's first what has been done in the
> > > pointer().
> > >
> > > Remove useless checks.
> > >
>
On Tue 2018-02-27 19:35:50, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Tue, 2018-02-27 at 16:50 +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > On Fri 2018-02-16 23:07:10, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > The pointer can't be NULL since it's first what has been done in the
> > > pointer().
> > >
> > > Remove useless checks.
> > >
>
On Tue, 2018-02-27 at 16:50 +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
> On Fri 2018-02-16 23:07:10, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > The pointer can't be NULL since it's first what has been done in the
> > pointer().
> >
> > Remove useless checks.
> >
> > Note we leave check for !CONFIG_HAVE_CLK to make compiler
> >
On Tue, 2018-02-27 at 16:50 +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
> On Fri 2018-02-16 23:07:10, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > The pointer can't be NULL since it's first what has been done in the
> > pointer().
> >
> > Remove useless checks.
> >
> > Note we leave check for !CONFIG_HAVE_CLK to make compiler
> >
On Fri 2018-02-16 23:07:10, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> The pointer can't be NULL since it's first what has been done in the
> pointer().
>
> Remove useless checks.
>
> Note we leave check for !CONFIG_HAVE_CLK to make compiler
> to optimize code away when possible.
>
> Cc: Petr Mladek
On Fri 2018-02-16 23:07:10, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> The pointer can't be NULL since it's first what has been done in the
> pointer().
>
> Remove useless checks.
>
> Note we leave check for !CONFIG_HAVE_CLK to make compiler
> to optimize code away when possible.
>
> Cc: Petr Mladek
>
The pointer can't be NULL since it's first what has been done in the
pointer().
Remove useless checks.
Note we leave check for !CONFIG_HAVE_CLK to make compiler
to optimize code away when possible.
Cc: Petr Mladek
Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko
The pointer can't be NULL since it's first what has been done in the
pointer().
Remove useless checks.
Note we leave check for !CONFIG_HAVE_CLK to make compiler
to optimize code away when possible.
Cc: Petr Mladek
Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko
---
lib/vsprintf.c | 13 +
1 file
20 matches
Mail list logo