On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 05:17:27PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Mon 13-05-13 21:56:43, Zheng Liu wrote:
> > On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 03:18:09PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > On Sun 12-05-13 13:04:59, EUNBONG SONG wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >> Since at this point it's safer to rollback the
On Mon 13-05-13 21:56:43, Zheng Liu wrote:
> On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 03:18:09PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > On Sun 12-05-13 13:04:59, EUNBONG SONG wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > >> Since at this point it's safer to rollback the change and we can
> > > >> investigate more deeply how to fix it correctly
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 03:18:09PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Sun 12-05-13 13:04:59, EUNBONG SONG wrote:
> >
> >
> > >> Since at this point it's safer to rollback the change and we can
> > >> investigate more deeply how to fix it correctly for the next
> > >> development cycle, this is the
On Sun 12-05-13 13:04:59, EUNBONG SONG wrote:
>
>
> >> Since at this point it's safer to rollback the change and we can
> >> investigate more deeply how to fix it correctly for the next
> >> development cycle, this is the patch which I'm testing.
>
> >> - Ted
>
> > Hello,
On Sun 12-05-13 13:04:59, EUNBONG SONG wrote:
Since at this point it's safer to rollback the change and we can
investigate more deeply how to fix it correctly for the next
development cycle, this is the patch which I'm testing.
- Ted
Hello, I've tested with
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 03:18:09PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
On Sun 12-05-13 13:04:59, EUNBONG SONG wrote:
Since at this point it's safer to rollback the change and we can
investigate more deeply how to fix it correctly for the next
development cycle, this is the patch which I'm
On Mon 13-05-13 21:56:43, Zheng Liu wrote:
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 03:18:09PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
On Sun 12-05-13 13:04:59, EUNBONG SONG wrote:
Since at this point it's safer to rollback the change and we can
investigate more deeply how to fix it correctly for the next
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 05:17:27PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
On Mon 13-05-13 21:56:43, Zheng Liu wrote:
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 03:18:09PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
On Sun 12-05-13 13:04:59, EUNBONG SONG wrote:
Since at this point it's safer to rollback the change and we can
On Sun, 12 May 2013 13:05:00 + (GMT), EUNBONG SONG
wrote:
>
>
> >> Since at this point it's safer to rollback the change and we can
> >> investigate more deeply how to fix it correctly for the next
> >> development cycle, this is the patch which I'm testing.
>
> >> -
>> Since at this point it's safer to rollback the change and we can
>> investigate more deeply how to fix it correctly for the next
>> development cycle, this is the patch which I'm testing.
>> - Ted
> Hello, I've tested with your patch. But the same problem was reproduced.
> Since at this point it's safer to rollback the change and we can
> investigate more deeply how to fix it correctly for the next
> development cycle, this is the patch which I'm testing.
> - Ted
Hello, I've tested with your patch. But the same problem was reproduced.
Since at this point it's safer to rollback the change and we can
investigate more deeply how to fix it correctly for the next
development cycle, this is the patch which I'm testing.
- Ted
Hello, I've tested with your patch. But the same problem was reproduced.
Since at this point it's safer to rollback the change and we can
investigate more deeply how to fix it correctly for the next
development cycle, this is the patch which I'm testing.
- Ted
Hello, I've tested with your patch. But the same problem was reproduced.
On Sun, 12 May 2013 13:05:00 + (GMT), EUNBONG SONG eunb.s...@samsung.com
wrote:
Since at this point it's safer to rollback the change and we can
investigate more deeply how to fix it correctly for the next
development cycle, this is the patch which I'm testing.
14 matches
Mail list logo