On 22.2.2017 14:04, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 09:22:19AM +0100, Michal Simek wrote:
>> On 22.2.2017 08:15, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>>> On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 12:26:17PM -0600, Alan Tull wrote:
On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 10:35 AM, Alan Tull
On 22.2.2017 14:04, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 09:22:19AM +0100, Michal Simek wrote:
>> On 22.2.2017 08:15, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>>> On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 12:26:17PM -0600, Alan Tull wrote:
On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 10:35 AM, Alan Tull
Hi Greg,
On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 09:22:19AM +0100, Michal Simek wrote:
> On 22.2.2017 08:15, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 12:26:17PM -0600, Alan Tull wrote:
> >> On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 10:35 AM, Alan Tull
> >>
> >> Hi Greg,
> >>
> >> Would it be
On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 09:22:19AM +0100, Michal Simek wrote:
> On 22.2.2017 08:15, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 12:26:17PM -0600, Alan Tull wrote:
> >> On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 10:35 AM, Alan Tull
> >>
> >> Hi Greg,
> >>
> >> Would it be helpful for us to resend patches
On 22.2.2017 08:15, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 12:26:17PM -0600, Alan Tull wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 10:35 AM, Alan Tull
>>
>> Hi Greg,
>>
>> Would it be helpful for us to resend patches for you to take with you
>> on cc? Or is it
On 22.2.2017 08:15, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 12:26:17PM -0600, Alan Tull wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 10:35 AM, Alan Tull
>>
>> Hi Greg,
>>
>> Would it be helpful for us to resend patches for you to take with you
>> on cc? Or is it enough that they are on lkml?
>
On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 12:26:17PM -0600, Alan Tull wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 10:35 AM, Alan Tull
>
> Hi Greg,
>
> Would it be helpful for us to resend patches for you to take with you
> on cc? Or is it enough that they are on lkml?
Yes, please send patches
On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 12:26:17PM -0600, Alan Tull wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 10:35 AM, Alan Tull
>
> Hi Greg,
>
> Would it be helpful for us to resend patches for you to take with you
> on cc? Or is it enough that they are on lkml?
Yes, please send patches with your signed-off-by: for
On 21.2.2017 19:26, Alan Tull wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 10:35 AM, Alan Tull
>
> Hi Greg,
>
> Would it be helpful for us to resend patches for you to take with you
> on cc? Or is it enough that they are on lkml?
Can I know the reason for this? I know that
On 21.2.2017 19:26, Alan Tull wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 10:35 AM, Alan Tull
>
> Hi Greg,
>
> Would it be helpful for us to resend patches for you to take with you
> on cc? Or is it enough that they are on lkml?
Can I know the reason for this? I know that there were some discussion
in
On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 12:36 PM, Michal Simek wrote:
> On 21.2.2017 19:26, Alan Tull wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 10:35 AM, Alan Tull
>>
>> Hi Greg,
>>
>> Would it be helpful for us to resend patches for you to take with you
>> on cc?
On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 12:36 PM, Michal Simek wrote:
> On 21.2.2017 19:26, Alan Tull wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 10:35 AM, Alan Tull
>>
>> Hi Greg,
>>
>> Would it be helpful for us to resend patches for you to take with you
>> on cc? Or is it enough that they are on lkml?
>
> Can I know
On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 10:35 AM, Alan Tull
Hi Greg,
Would it be helpful for us to resend patches for you to take with you
on cc? Or is it enough that they are on lkml?
Thanks,
Alan Tull
wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 7:55 AM, Michal Simek
On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 10:35 AM, Alan Tull
Hi Greg,
Would it be helpful for us to resend patches for you to take with you
on cc? Or is it enough that they are on lkml?
Thanks,
Alan Tull
wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 7:55 AM, Michal Simek wrote:
>> On 20.2.2017 21:55, m...@kernel.org
On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 7:55 AM, Michal Simek wrote:
> On 20.2.2017 21:55, m...@kernel.org wrote:
>> From: Moritz Fischer
>>
>> Add a flag that is passed to the write_init() callback, indicating
>> that the bitstream is encrypted.
>>
>> The low-level
On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 7:55 AM, Michal Simek wrote:
> On 20.2.2017 21:55, m...@kernel.org wrote:
>> From: Moritz Fischer
>>
>> Add a flag that is passed to the write_init() callback, indicating
>> that the bitstream is encrypted.
>>
>> The low-level driver will deal with the flag, or return an
On 20.2.2017 21:55, m...@kernel.org wrote:
> From: Moritz Fischer
>
> Add a flag that is passed to the write_init() callback, indicating
> that the bitstream is encrypted.
>
> The low-level driver will deal with the flag, or return an error,
> if encrypted bitstreams are not
On 20.2.2017 21:55, m...@kernel.org wrote:
> From: Moritz Fischer
>
> Add a flag that is passed to the write_init() callback, indicating
> that the bitstream is encrypted.
>
> The low-level driver will deal with the flag, or return an error,
> if encrypted bitstreams are not supported.
>
>
From: Moritz Fischer
Add a flag that is passed to the write_init() callback, indicating
that the bitstream is encrypted.
The low-level driver will deal with the flag, or return an error,
if encrypted bitstreams are not supported.
Signed-off-by: Moritz Fischer
From: Moritz Fischer
Add a flag that is passed to the write_init() callback, indicating
that the bitstream is encrypted.
The low-level driver will deal with the flag, or return an error,
if encrypted bitstreams are not supported.
Signed-off-by: Moritz Fischer
Cc: Alan Tull
Cc: Michal Simek
20 matches
Mail list logo