Rob Landley writes:
> On 09/15/2013 11:08:35 PM, Rusty Russell wrote:
>> Predates git, does anyone remember the rationale?
>
> Depends which git: http://landley.net/kdocs/fullhist/ :)
Not useful. See Geert's more helpful response.
Cheers,
Rusty.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
On 09/15/2013 11:08:35 PM, Rusty Russell wrote:
Predates git, does anyone remember the rationale?
Depends which git: http://landley.net/kdocs/fullhist/ :)
Rob--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More
On 09/15/2013 11:08:35 PM, Rusty Russell wrote:
Predates git, does anyone remember the rationale?
Depends which git: http://landley.net/kdocs/fullhist/ :)
Rob--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More
Rob Landley r...@landley.net writes:
On 09/15/2013 11:08:35 PM, Rusty Russell wrote:
Predates git, does anyone remember the rationale?
Depends which git: http://landley.net/kdocs/fullhist/ :)
Not useful. See Geert's more helpful response.
Cheers,
Rusty.
--
To unsubscribe from this list:
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 12:08 AM, Rusty Russell wrote:
> Predates git, does anyone remember the rationale?
>
> ie:
> int test_bit(int nr, const volatile unsigned long *addr)
Both of Stephen Rothwell's guesses are correct.
One reason is that we used to use "volatile" a lot more than we
On Mon, 2013-09-16 at 11:44 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 10:40:00AM +0200, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> > On Mon, 2013-09-16 at 13:38 +0930, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > > Predates git, does anyone remember the rationale?
> > >
> > > ie:
> > > int test_bit(int nr,
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 06:02:31PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Michael,
>
> On Mon, 16 Sep 2013 10:26:03 +0300 "Michael S. Tsirkin"
> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 04:53:44PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, 16 Sep 2013 13:38:35 +0930 Rusty Russell
> > >
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 10:40:00AM +0200, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-09-16 at 13:38 +0930, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > Predates git, does anyone remember the rationale?
> >
> > ie:
> > int test_bit(int nr, const volatile unsigned long *addr)
> >
> > I noticed because gcc failed to
On Mon, 2013-09-16 at 13:38 +0930, Rusty Russell wrote:
> Predates git, does anyone remember the rationale?
>
> ie:
> int test_bit(int nr, const volatile unsigned long *addr)
>
> I noticed because gcc failed to elimiate some code in a patch I was
> playing with.
>
> I'm nervous about
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 01:38:35PM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote:
> Predates git, does anyone remember the rationale?
>
> ie:
> int test_bit(int nr, const volatile unsigned long *addr)
>
> I noticed because gcc failed to elimiate some code in a patch I was
> playing with.
>
> I'm nervous
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 6:08 AM, Rusty Russell wrote:
> Predates git, does anyone remember the rationale?
>
> ie:
> int test_bit(int nr, const volatile unsigned long *addr)
That's why we have full-history-linux ;-)
Unfortunately it doesn't show the rationale, as this change also
Hi Michael,
On Mon, 16 Sep 2013 10:26:03 +0300 "Michael S. Tsirkin" wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 04:53:44PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 16 Sep 2013 13:38:35 +0930 Rusty Russell
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Predates git, does anyone remember the rationale?
> > >
> > > ie:
>
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 04:53:44PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Rusty,
>
> On Mon, 16 Sep 2013 13:38:35 +0930 Rusty Russell
> wrote:
> >
> > Predates git, does anyone remember the rationale?
> >
> > ie:
> > int test_bit(int nr, const volatile unsigned long *addr)
>
> Because we
Hi Rusty,
On Mon, 16 Sep 2013 13:38:35 +0930 Rusty Russell wrote:
>
> Predates git, does anyone remember the rationale?
>
> ie:
> int test_bit(int nr, const volatile unsigned long *addr)
Because we sometimes pass volatile pointers to it and gcc will complain
if you pass a volatile to a
Predates git, does anyone remember the rationale?
ie:
int test_bit(int nr, const volatile unsigned long *addr)
I noticed because gcc failed to elimiate some code in a patch I was
playing with.
I'm nervous about subtle bugs involved in ripping it out, even if noone
knows why. Should I
Predates git, does anyone remember the rationale?
ie:
int test_bit(int nr, const volatile unsigned long *addr)
I noticed because gcc failed to elimiate some code in a patch I was
playing with.
I'm nervous about subtle bugs involved in ripping it out, even if noone
knows why. Should I
Hi Rusty,
On Mon, 16 Sep 2013 13:38:35 +0930 Rusty Russell ru...@rustcorp.com.au wrote:
Predates git, does anyone remember the rationale?
ie:
int test_bit(int nr, const volatile unsigned long *addr)
Because we sometimes pass volatile pointers to it and gcc will complain
if you pass
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 04:53:44PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
Hi Rusty,
On Mon, 16 Sep 2013 13:38:35 +0930 Rusty Russell ru...@rustcorp.com.au
wrote:
Predates git, does anyone remember the rationale?
ie:
int test_bit(int nr, const volatile unsigned long *addr)
Hi Michael,
On Mon, 16 Sep 2013 10:26:03 +0300 Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com wrote:
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 04:53:44PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
On Mon, 16 Sep 2013 13:38:35 +0930 Rusty Russell ru...@rustcorp.com.au
wrote:
Predates git, does anyone remember the
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 6:08 AM, Rusty Russell ru...@rustcorp.com.au wrote:
Predates git, does anyone remember the rationale?
ie:
int test_bit(int nr, const volatile unsigned long *addr)
That's why we have full-history-linux ;-)
Unfortunately it doesn't show the rationale, as this
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 01:38:35PM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote:
Predates git, does anyone remember the rationale?
ie:
int test_bit(int nr, const volatile unsigned long *addr)
I noticed because gcc failed to elimiate some code in a patch I was
playing with.
I'm nervous about
On Mon, 2013-09-16 at 13:38 +0930, Rusty Russell wrote:
Predates git, does anyone remember the rationale?
ie:
int test_bit(int nr, const volatile unsigned long *addr)
I noticed because gcc failed to elimiate some code in a patch I was
playing with.
I'm nervous about subtle bugs
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 10:40:00AM +0200, Oliver Neukum wrote:
On Mon, 2013-09-16 at 13:38 +0930, Rusty Russell wrote:
Predates git, does anyone remember the rationale?
ie:
int test_bit(int nr, const volatile unsigned long *addr)
I noticed because gcc failed to elimiate some
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 06:02:31PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
Hi Michael,
On Mon, 16 Sep 2013 10:26:03 +0300 Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com
wrote:
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 04:53:44PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
On Mon, 16 Sep 2013 13:38:35 +0930 Rusty Russell
On Mon, 2013-09-16 at 11:44 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 10:40:00AM +0200, Oliver Neukum wrote:
On Mon, 2013-09-16 at 13:38 +0930, Rusty Russell wrote:
Predates git, does anyone remember the rationale?
ie:
int test_bit(int nr, const volatile
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 12:08 AM, Rusty Russell ru...@rustcorp.com.au wrote:
Predates git, does anyone remember the rationale?
ie:
int test_bit(int nr, const volatile unsigned long *addr)
Both of Stephen Rothwell's guesses are correct.
One reason is that we used to use volatile a lot
26 matches
Mail list logo
