At 15:19 +0100 on 10 Apr (1428679192), David Vrabel wrote:
> asm/spinlock.h should not be included directly.
>
> Signed-off-by: David Vrabel
Reviewed-by: TIm Deegan
___
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
On 13/04/15 14:13, David Vrabel wrote:
> On 10/04/15 16:24, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> On 10/04/15 15:19, David Vrabel wrote:
>>> asm/spinlock.h should not be included directly.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: David Vrabel
>> s/asm/xen/g instead of a straight delete?
>>
>> Otherwise you are relying on pulling
On 10/04/15 16:24, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 10/04/15 15:19, David Vrabel wrote:
>> asm/spinlock.h should not be included directly.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: David Vrabel
>
> s/asm/xen/g instead of a straight delete?
>
> Otherwise you are relying on pulling in xen/spinlock.h implicitly.
None of thes
