On Sat, 24 Nov 2007, Pierre Ossman wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 12:33:45 +0100
> Andre Haupt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I think, the status paramter should be unsigned. Is this correct?
> > This also fixes a sparse warning about different signedness.
> > Only compile tested, because i do
On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 12:33:45 +0100
Andre Haupt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think, the status paramter should be unsigned. Is this correct?
> This also fixes a sparse warning about different signedness.
> Only compile tested, because i do not have the hardware.
>
> From: Andre Haupt <[EMAIL
On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 12:33:45 +0100
Andre Haupt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think, the status paramter should be unsigned. Is this correct?
This also fixes a sparse warning about different signedness.
Only compile tested, because i do not have the hardware.
From: Andre Haupt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 24 Nov 2007, Pierre Ossman wrote:
On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 12:33:45 +0100
Andre Haupt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think, the status paramter should be unsigned. Is this correct?
This also fixes a sparse warning about different signedness.
Only compile tested, because i do not have the
I think, the status paramter should be unsigned. Is this correct?
This also fixes a sparse warning about different signedness.
Only compile tested, because i do not have the hardware.
From: Andre Haupt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Signed-off-by: Andre Haupt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
I think, the status paramter should be unsigned. Is this correct?
This also fixes a sparse warning about different signedness.
Only compile tested, because i do not have the hardware.
From: Andre Haupt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Signed-off-by: Andre Haupt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
6 matches
Mail list logo