On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 11:16 AM, Frans Klaver wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 11:11 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven
> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 7:45 AM, AbdAllah-MEZITI
>> wrote:
>>> This patch
>>> - will always take the lock
>>
>> Why?
>>
>> "The current code only takes the lock if multiple in
On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 11:11 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven
wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 7:45 AM, AbdAllah-MEZITI
> wrote:
>> This patch
>> - will always take the lock
>
> Why?
>
> "The current code only takes the lock if multiple instances are in use.
> This is error-prone, and confuses static ana
On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 7:45 AM, AbdAllah-MEZITI
wrote:
> This patch
> - will always take the lock
Why?
"The current code only takes the lock if multiple instances are in use.
This is error-prone, and confuses static analyzers.
As taking the lock in case of a single instance is harmful and che
There's no version number. Which one is the correct one?
On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 7:45 AM, AbdAllah-MEZITI
wrote:
> This patch
> - will always take the lock
> - fix the sparse warning:
> drivers/staging/sm750fb/sm750.c:159:13: warning: context imbalance in
> 'lynxfb_ops_fillrect' - different lock
On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 11:39 PM, AbdAllah-MEZITI
wrote:
> Subject: [PATCH] staging: sm750fb: always take the lock
When sending a new version of your patch, include a version number:
Subject: [PATCH V2] staging: ...
Frans
On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 11:39:20PM +0200, AbdAllah-MEZITI wrote:
> Signed-off-by: AbdAllah MEZITI
I can't take patches without any changelog text, sorry.
greg k-h
6 matches
Mail list logo