Sebastian Siewior wrote:
Greg Ungerer wrote:
Sebastian Siewior wrote:
Greg Ungerer wrote:
Sebastian Siewior wrote:
May we agree on a git tree? This would make things easier I guess.
Even
Russell has one these days :) This would atleast avoid [2]. And if you
remove the stack address in my o
Greg Ungerer wrote:
Sebastian Siewior wrote:
Greg Ungerer wrote:
Sebastian Siewior wrote:
May we agree on a git tree? This would make things easier I guess. Even
Russell has one these days :) This would atleast avoid [2]. And if you
remove the stack address in my other patch please let me know
Sebastian Siewior wrote:
Greg Ungerer wrote:
Sebastian Siewior wrote:
May we agree on a git tree? This would make things easier I guess. Even
Russell has one these days :) This would atleast avoid [2]. And if you
remove the stack address in my other patch please let me know or alteast
leave a n
Greg Ungerer wrote:
Hi Sebastian,
Hi Greg,
Sebastian Siewior wrote:
- you forwarded my patches after you edit them.
Rebased, and regenerated them. Any other change is an
over site. Can you be more specific what content changed?
- You removed the stack address from the backtrace.
- A few f
Hi Sebastian,
Sebastian Siewior wrote:
- you forwarded my patches after you edit them.
Rebased, and regenerated them. Any other change is an
over site. Can you be more specific what content changed?
- I was not on CC
Sorry, that was my mistake.
- I sent [1] you did [2]. Did not check
- you forwarded my patches after you edit them.
- I was not on CC
- I sent [1] you did [2]. Did not check further because I went bm
- You did not take even one of my fec clean up patches but you merged
the locking fix. Since this patch was after the cleanup one you had
spent some time to ma
