On Tue, 2015-12-01 at 12:48 -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Wed, 2015-11-25 at 11:36 -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Wed, 2015-11-25 at 10:35 -0800, Jeff Kirsher wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2015-11-25 at 21:26 +0300, Sergei Shtylyov wrote:
> > > > On 11/25/2015 09:21 PM, Jeff Kirsher wrote:
> > > >
> > >
On Wed, 2015-11-25 at 11:36 -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Wed, 2015-11-25 at 10:35 -0800, Jeff Kirsher wrote:
> > On Wed, 2015-11-25 at 21:26 +0300, Sergei Shtylyov wrote:
> > > On 11/25/2015 09:21 PM, Jeff Kirsher wrote:
> > >
> > > > From: Shannon Nelson
> > > >
> > > > There's really no reas
On Wed, 2015-11-25 at 10:35 -0800, Jeff Kirsher wrote:
> On Wed, 2015-11-25 at 21:26 +0300, Sergei Shtylyov wrote:
> > On 11/25/2015 09:21 PM, Jeff Kirsher wrote:
> >
> > > From: Shannon Nelson
> > >
> > > There's really no reason to kill the kernel thread just because of a
> > > little info str
On Wed, 2015-11-25 at 21:26 +0300, Sergei Shtylyov wrote:
> On 11/25/2015 09:21 PM, Jeff Kirsher wrote:
>
> > From: Shannon Nelson
> >
> > There's really no reason to kill the kernel thread just because of
> a
> > little info string. This reworks the code to use snprintf's
> limiting to
> > assur
Hello.
On 11/25/2015 09:21 PM, Jeff Kirsher wrote:
From: Shannon Nelson
There's really no reason to kill the kernel thread just because of a
little info string. This reworks the code to use snprintf's limiting to
assure that the string is never too long, and WARN_ON to still put out
a warning
From: Shannon Nelson
There's really no reason to kill the kernel thread just because of a
little info string. This reworks the code to use snprintf's limiting to
assure that the string is never too long, and WARN_ON to still put out
a warning that we might want to look at the feature list length.
