On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 12:49:42PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Wed, 2014-06-18 at 12:33 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 11:51:41AM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
> > > On Sat, 14 Jun 2014, Julia Lawall wrote:
> > > > With a semantic patch that searches for the various call
On Wed, 2014-06-18 at 12:33 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 11:51:41AM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
> > On Sat, 14 Jun 2014, Julia Lawall wrote:
> > > With a semantic patch that searches for the various calls and then a
> > > string containing the letters "emory", I get remo
On Sat, 2014-06-14 at 09:40 +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
> With a semantic patch that searches for the various calls and then a
> string containing the letters "emory", I get removals of the messages
> below. Do any of these messages look useful? For example, some are
> generated with specific f
With a semantic patch that searches for the various calls and then a
string containing the letters "emory", I get removals of the messages
below. Do any of these messages look useful? For example, some are
generated with specific functions, such as IRDA_ERROR or BT_ERR. If none
of the messag
On Wed, 2014-06-11 at 10:47 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> Acked-by: Dan Carpenter
>
> This check introduces 1849 new checkpatch.pl warnings. I looked through
> the first 70 warnings and there were no false positives.
Thanks for checking Dan.
As your systems are much faster than mine, perhaps y
Acked-by: Dan Carpenter
This check introduces 1849 new checkpatch.pl warnings. I looked through
the first 70 warnings and there were no false positives.
Besides the bloat issue, I don't like these warnings because they make
the error handling harder to read. They are sort of a mindless thing
t
6 matches
Mail list logo
