> What I'm saying is... don't expect me to always review patches that
> are for fixing code that other people have contributed - I wish those
> who introduce regressions would stick around and attend to breakage
> that they cause, instead of hoping that someone else will do that
> for them. It's
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 02:02:40PM +0100, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> Hi Russell,
>
> > Those who cause breakage really should be the ones to look at patches
> > that fix their breakage.
>
> Does it mean you want an explicit ack from Thomas or that it should go
> via his tree?
What I'm saying is... do
Hi Russell,
> Those who cause breakage really should be the ones to look at patches
> that fix their breakage.
Does it mean you want an explicit ack from Thomas or that it should go
via his tree?
> The way patches get applied is if they end up in my patch system... if
> they don't make it there,
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 11:04:47AM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Wolfram,
>
> On Mon, Dec 28, 2020 at 1:03 PM Wolfram Sang
> wrote:
> > Not used anymore after refactoring:
> >
> > arch/arm/kernel/smp.c: In function ‘show_ipi_list’:
> > arch/arm/kernel/smp.c:543:16: warning: variable ‘irq’
Hi Wolfram,
On Mon, Dec 28, 2020 at 1:03 PM Wolfram Sang
wrote:
> Not used anymore after refactoring:
>
> arch/arm/kernel/smp.c: In function ‘show_ipi_list’:
> arch/arm/kernel/smp.c:543:16: warning: variable ‘irq’ set but not used
> [-Wunused-but-set-variable]
> 543 | unsigned int irq;
>
> F
Not used anymore after refactoring:
arch/arm/kernel/smp.c: In function ‘show_ipi_list’:
arch/arm/kernel/smp.c:543:16: warning: variable ‘irq’ set but not used
[-Wunused-but-set-variable]
543 | unsigned int irq;
Fixes: 88c637748e31 ("ARM: smp: Use irq_desc_kstat_cpu() in show_ipi_list()")
Sig
6 matches
Mail list logo
