On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 08:45:43AM -1000, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 7:45 PM, Al Viro wrote:
> >
> > Linus, do you have any objections to the above? FWIW, I've a tentative
> > patchset in that direction (most of it from the last cycle); right now
> > it + stuff currently in
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 08:45:43AM -1000, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 7:45 PM, Al Viro v...@zeniv.linux.org.uk wrote:
Linus, do you have any objections to the above? FWIW, I've a tentative
patchset in that direction (most of it from the last cycle); right now
it + stuff
On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 7:45 PM, Al Viro wrote:
>
> Linus, do you have any objections to the above? FWIW, I've a tentative
> patchset in that direction (most of it from the last cycle); right now
> it + stuff currently in signal.git#for-next is at -3.4KLoC and I hadn't
> dealt with the biarch
On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 7:45 PM, Al Viro v...@zeniv.linux.org.uk wrote:
Linus, do you have any objections to the above? FWIW, I've a tentative
patchset in that direction (most of it from the last cycle); right now
it + stuff currently in signal.git#for-next is at -3.4KLoC and I hadn't
dealt
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 08:59:25AM +0100, Michal Simek wrote:
> Do you have set of tests which should run it?
>
>
> > 2) your definition of current_pt_regs() is an exact copy of on in
> > include/linux/ptrace.h; why is "microblaze: Define current_pt_regs"
> > needed at all? IOW, I'd rather
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 08:59:25AM +0100, Michal Simek wrote:
Do you have set of tests which should run it?
2) your definition of current_pt_regs() is an exact copy of on in
include/linux/ptrace.h; why is microblaze: Define current_pt_regs
needed at all? IOW, I'd rather added #include
6 matches
Mail list logo
