Oh, sorry for my original impolite reply (at least it is not quite gentle).
:-)
On 07/16/2013 08:22 AM, Chen Gang wrote:
> On 07/16/2013 12:20 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>> On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 10:12 +0800, Chen Gang wrote:
>>
Hello Frederic and Ingo:
>> Are you trying to go around me? I
Oh, sorry for my original impolite reply (at least it is not quite gentle).
:-)
On 07/16/2013 08:22 AM, Chen Gang wrote:
On 07/16/2013 12:20 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 10:12 +0800, Chen Gang wrote:
Hello Frederic and Ingo:
Are you trying to go around me? I wrote this
On 07/16/2013 12:20 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 10:12 +0800, Chen Gang wrote:
>
>> > Hello Frederic and Ingo:
> Are you trying to go around me? I wrote this code and I'm one of the
> maintainers for it. Your issue is very minor, and can wait till other
> things get done
On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 10:12 +0800, Chen Gang wrote:
> Hello Frederic and Ingo:
Are you trying to go around me? I wrote this code and I'm one of the
maintainers for it. Your issue is very minor, and can wait till other
things get done first.
You said my previous patch fixed your problem, right?
On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 10:12 +0800, Chen Gang wrote:
Hello Frederic and Ingo:
Are you trying to go around me? I wrote this code and I'm one of the
maintainers for it. Your issue is very minor, and can wait till other
things get done first.
You said my previous patch fixed your problem, right?
On 07/16/2013 12:20 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 10:12 +0800, Chen Gang wrote:
Hello Frederic and Ingo:
Are you trying to go around me? I wrote this code and I'm one of the
maintainers for it. Your issue is very minor, and can wait till other
things get done first.
On 07/12/2013 03:20 PM, Chen Gang wrote:
> On 07/12/2013 11:04 AM, Chen Gang wrote:
>> On 07/12/2013 10:38 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>>> On Fri, 2013-07-12 at 09:58 +0800, Chen Gang wrote:
On 07/12/2013 09:41 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-07-12 at 07:51 +0800, Chen Gang wrote:
On 07/12/2013 03:20 PM, Chen Gang wrote:
On 07/12/2013 11:04 AM, Chen Gang wrote:
On 07/12/2013 10:38 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Fri, 2013-07-12 at 09:58 +0800, Chen Gang wrote:
On 07/12/2013 09:41 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Fri, 2013-07-12 at 07:51 +0800, Chen Gang wrote:
Hmm, can all
On 07/12/2013 11:04 AM, Chen Gang wrote:
> On 07/12/2013 10:38 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>> On Fri, 2013-07-12 at 09:58 +0800, Chen Gang wrote:
>>> On 07/12/2013 09:41 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Fri, 2013-07-12 at 07:51 +0800, Chen Gang wrote:
>> Hmm, can all
On 07/12/2013 11:04 AM, Chen Gang wrote:
On 07/12/2013 10:38 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Fri, 2013-07-12 at 09:58 +0800, Chen Gang wrote:
On 07/12/2013 09:41 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Fri, 2013-07-12 at 07:51 +0800, Chen Gang wrote:
Hmm, can all trace_selftest_startup_* (*selftest* in
On 07/12/2013 10:38 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-07-12 at 09:58 +0800, Chen Gang wrote:
>> On 07/12/2013 09:41 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>>> On Fri, 2013-07-12 at 07:51 +0800, Chen Gang wrote:
>>>
> Hmm, can all trace_selftest_startup_* (*selftest* in trace_selftest.c)
> use
On Fri, 2013-07-12 at 09:58 +0800, Chen Gang wrote:
> On 07/12/2013 09:41 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Fri, 2013-07-12 at 07:51 +0800, Chen Gang wrote:
> >
> >> > Hmm, can all trace_selftest_startup_* (*selftest* in trace_selftest.c)
> >> > use '__init', so not waste memory keeping them
On 07/12/2013 09:41 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-07-12 at 07:51 +0800, Chen Gang wrote:
>
>> > Hmm, can all trace_selftest_startup_* (*selftest* in trace_selftest.c)
>> > use '__init', so not waste memory keeping them around ?
> Yeah, they should all be set to __init, but that's
On Fri, 2013-07-12 at 07:51 +0800, Chen Gang wrote:
> Hmm, can all trace_selftest_startup_* (*selftest* in trace_selftest.c)
> use '__init', so not waste memory keeping them around ?
Yeah, they should all be set to __init, but that's pretty low on the
totem poll, as distros don't enable
On 07/12/2013 12:47 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-07-11 at 08:31 +0800, Chen Gang wrote:
>> Like other trace_selftest_startup_*, trace_selftest_startup_function()
>> and trace_selftest_startup_function_graph() need in normal section, or
>> may cause section mismatch.
>>
>> The related
On Thu, 2013-07-11 at 08:31 +0800, Chen Gang wrote:
> Like other trace_selftest_startup_*, trace_selftest_startup_function()
> and trace_selftest_startup_function_graph() need in normal section, or
> may cause section mismatch.
>
> The related warnings:
>
> LD kernel/trace/built-in.o
>
On Thu, 2013-07-11 at 08:31 +0800, Chen Gang wrote:
Like other trace_selftest_startup_*, trace_selftest_startup_function()
and trace_selftest_startup_function_graph() need in normal section, or
may cause section mismatch.
The related warnings:
LD kernel/trace/built-in.o
On 07/12/2013 12:47 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Thu, 2013-07-11 at 08:31 +0800, Chen Gang wrote:
Like other trace_selftest_startup_*, trace_selftest_startup_function()
and trace_selftest_startup_function_graph() need in normal section, or
may cause section mismatch.
The related warnings:
On Fri, 2013-07-12 at 07:51 +0800, Chen Gang wrote:
Hmm, can all trace_selftest_startup_* (*selftest* in trace_selftest.c)
use '__init', so not waste memory keeping them around ?
Yeah, they should all be set to __init, but that's pretty low on the
totem poll, as distros don't enable selftests
On 07/12/2013 09:41 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Fri, 2013-07-12 at 07:51 +0800, Chen Gang wrote:
Hmm, can all trace_selftest_startup_* (*selftest* in trace_selftest.c)
use '__init', so not waste memory keeping them around ?
Yeah, they should all be set to __init, but that's pretty low on
On Fri, 2013-07-12 at 09:58 +0800, Chen Gang wrote:
On 07/12/2013 09:41 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Fri, 2013-07-12 at 07:51 +0800, Chen Gang wrote:
Hmm, can all trace_selftest_startup_* (*selftest* in trace_selftest.c)
use '__init', so not waste memory keeping them around ?
Yeah,
On 07/12/2013 10:38 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Fri, 2013-07-12 at 09:58 +0800, Chen Gang wrote:
On 07/12/2013 09:41 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Fri, 2013-07-12 at 07:51 +0800, Chen Gang wrote:
Hmm, can all trace_selftest_startup_* (*selftest* in trace_selftest.c)
use '__init', so not
Like other trace_selftest_startup_*, trace_selftest_startup_function()
and trace_selftest_startup_function_graph() need in normal section, or
may cause section mismatch.
The related warnings:
LD kernel/trace/built-in.o
WARNING: kernel/trace/built-in.o(.data+0x154c): Section mismatch
Like other trace_selftest_startup_*, trace_selftest_startup_function()
and trace_selftest_startup_function_graph() need in normal section, or
may cause section mismatch.
The related warnings:
LD kernel/trace/built-in.o
WARNING: kernel/trace/built-in.o(.data+0x154c): Section mismatch
24 matches
Mail list logo
