On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 4:20 PM, Bin Meng wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 11:19 AM, Simon Glass wrote:
>> On 12 February 2016 at 14:27, Stephen Warren wrote:
>>> From: Stephen Warren
>>>
>>> Purely by code
On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 11:19 AM, Simon Glass wrote:
> On 12 February 2016 at 14:27, Stephen Warren wrote:
>> From: Stephen Warren
>>
>> Purely by code inspection, it looks like the parameter order to memalign()
>> is swapped; its
Hi Stephen,
On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 5:27 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> From: Stephen Warren
>
> Purely by code inspection, it looks like the parameter order to memalign()
> is swapped; its parameters are (align, size). 4096 is a likely desired
>
On 12 February 2016 at 14:27, Stephen Warren wrote:
> From: Stephen Warren
>
> Purely by code inspection, it looks like the parameter order to memalign()
> is swapped; its parameters are (align, size). 4096 is a likely desired
> alignment, and a
From: Stephen Warren
Purely by code inspection, it looks like the parameter order to memalign()
is swapped; its parameters are (align, size). 4096 is a likely desired
alignment, and a variable named size sounds like a size:-)
Fixes: 45b5a37836d5 ("x86: Add multi-processor
5 matches
Mail list logo