Gaudenz Steinlin wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 01:13:56AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 26 of February 2008, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>>> On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 12:52:56AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> I'm not suggesting a partial revert; I just wonder which part of
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 01:13:56AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tuesday, 26 of February 2008, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 12:52:56AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > I'm not suggesting a partial revert; I just wonder which part of the
> > > > change is
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 01:13:56AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Tuesday, 26 of February 2008, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 12:52:56AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
I'm not suggesting a partial revert; I just wonder which part of the
change is causing the
Gaudenz Steinlin wrote:
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 01:13:56AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Tuesday, 26 of February 2008, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 12:52:56AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
I'm not suggesting a partial revert; I just wonder which part of the
change
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 01:13:56AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tuesday, 26 of February 2008, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 12:52:56AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > I'm not suggesting a partial revert; I just wonder which part of the
> > > > change is
On Tuesday, 26 of February 2008, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 12:52:56AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > I'm not suggesting a partial revert; I just wonder which part of the
> > > change is causing the problem, as part of the debugging process.
> >
> > Understood.
> >
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 12:52:56AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > I'm not suggesting a partial revert; I just wonder which part of the
> > change is causing the problem, as part of the debugging process.
>
> Understood.
>
> My point is, if that's not practical (whatever the reason), I'd
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 12:52:56AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
I'm not suggesting a partial revert; I just wonder which part of the
change is causing the problem, as part of the debugging process.
Understood.
My point is, if that's not practical (whatever the reason), I'd consider
On Tuesday, 26 of February 2008, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 12:52:56AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
I'm not suggesting a partial revert; I just wonder which part of the
change is causing the problem, as part of the debugging process.
Understood.
My point
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 01:13:56AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Tuesday, 26 of February 2008, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 12:52:56AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
I'm not suggesting a partial revert; I just wonder which part of the
change is causing the
10 matches
Mail list logo
