On Thu 2018-02-01 14:49:24, Miroslav Benes wrote:
>
> > -struct klp_object *klp_get_or_add_object(struct klp_patch *patch,
> > +static struct klp_object *klp_get_or_add_object(struct klp_patch *patch,
> > struct klp_object *old_obj)
>
> A nit, but this
> -struct klp_object *klp_get_or_add_object(struct klp_patch *patch,
> +static struct klp_object *klp_get_or_add_object(struct klp_patch *patch,
> struct klp_object *old_obj)
A nit, but this change belongs to 3/6, doesn't it?
> {
> struct klp_
On 01.02.2018 00:55, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 01:33:04PM +0300, Evgenii Shatokhin wrote:
+ The callbacks from the replaced patches are not called. It would be
pretty hard to define a reasonable semantic and implement it.
At least, it surely simplifies error handl
On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 01:33:04PM +0300, Evgenii Shatokhin wrote:
> >+ The callbacks from the replaced patches are not called. It would be
> > pretty hard to define a reasonable semantic and implement it.
>
> At least, it surely simplifies error handling, if these callbacks are not
> cal
On 25.01.2018 19:02, Petr Mladek wrote:
From: Jason Baron
Sometimes we would like to revert a particular fix. Currently, this
is not easy because we want to keep all other fixes active and we
could revert only the last applied patch.
One solution would be to apply new patch that implemented al
On Thu 2018-01-25 23:27:57, Jason Baron wrote:
> On 01/25/2018 11:02 AM, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > From: Jason Baron
> > A better solution would be to create cumulative patch and say that
> > it replaces all older ones.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jason Baron
> > [pmla...@suse.com: Split, reuse existing
On 01/25/2018 11:02 AM, Petr Mladek wrote:
> From: Jason Baron
>
> Sometimes we would like to revert a particular fix. Currently, this
> is not easy because we want to keep all other fixes active and we
> could revert only the last applied patch.
>
> One solution would be to apply new patch th
7 matches
Mail list logo
