On Fri, 2015-06-12 at 14:01 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> Why v3 in the subject?
>
It was v3 of the patch he sent, which came at about v4 of the original
patchset. I guess that just causes confusion, so I'll keep the version
numbers the same for a patchset.
> On Mon, 8 Jun 2015 16:32:00 -0500
On 06/13/2015 10:45 AM, Daniel Wagner wrote:
> On 06/12/2015 06:01 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>>> Signed-off-by: Tom Zanussi
>>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Wagner
>>
>> Why is Daniel signed off by here?
>
> I have reported the issue and send a fix for this patch
>
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/4/21/16
On 06/12/2015 06:01 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
Why v3 in the subject?
This patch has not changed since v3 I guess.
On Mon, 8 Jun 2015 16:32:00 -0500
Tom Zanussi wrote:
When a trigger is enabled, the cond flag should be set beforehand,
otherwise a trigger that's expecting to process a tra
Why v3 in the subject?
On Mon, 8 Jun 2015 16:32:00 -0500
Tom Zanussi wrote:
> When a trigger is enabled, the cond flag should be set beforehand,
> otherwise a trigger that's expecting to process a trace record
> (e.g. one with post_trigger set) could be invoked without one.
>
> Likewise a tri
When a trigger is enabled, the cond flag should be set beforehand,
otherwise a trigger that's expecting to process a trace record
(e.g. one with post_trigger set) could be invoked without one.
Likewise a trigger's cond flag should be reset after it's disabled,
not before.
Signed-off-by: Tom Zanus
5 matches
Mail list logo
