On 6/7/07, Richard Purdie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, 2007-06-07 at 10:11 +0530, Nitin Gupta wrote:
> Your code now looks nice and clean. But I don't know what you want. I
> already spent lot of time on version 7 I posted and contains all those
> corrections which were suggested for my
On Thu, 2007-06-07 at 10:11 +0530, Nitin Gupta wrote:
> Your code now looks nice and clean. But I don't know what you want. I
> already spent lot of time on version 7 I posted and contains all those
> corrections which were suggested for my earlier version. I cannot ask
> you to look into possible
On Wed, Jun 06, 2007 at 06:26:32PM +0100, Richard Purdie wrote:
> +/* Which machines to allow unaligned accesses on */
> +#if defined(CONFIG_X86_32) || defined(CONFIG_X86_64)
> +#define LZO_UNALIGNED_OK_2
> +#define LZO_UNALIGNED_OK_4
> +#endif
> +
This is silly, just use get/put_unaligned(). This
On Wed, Jun 06, 2007 at 06:26:32PM +0100, Richard Purdie wrote:
+/* Which machines to allow unaligned accesses on */
+#if defined(CONFIG_X86_32) || defined(CONFIG_X86_64)
+#define LZO_UNALIGNED_OK_2
+#define LZO_UNALIGNED_OK_4
+#endif
+
This is silly, just use get/put_unaligned(). This same
On Thu, 2007-06-07 at 10:11 +0530, Nitin Gupta wrote:
Your code now looks nice and clean. But I don't know what you want. I
already spent lot of time on version 7 I posted and contains all those
corrections which were suggested for my earlier version. I cannot ask
you to look into possible
On 6/7/07, Richard Purdie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 2007-06-07 at 10:11 +0530, Nitin Gupta wrote:
Your code now looks nice and clean. But I don't know what you want. I
already spent lot of time on version 7 I posted and contains all those
corrections which were suggested for my earlier
On 6/6/07, Richard Purdie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Nitin: Have you any objections to this version? If not, I'll finish
analysing the PTR_ code changes and then hopefully we can get something
into -mm...
Your code now looks nice and clean. But I don't know what you want. I
already spent
Add LZO1X compression/decompression support to the kernel.
This has been created by taking my originally proposed patch and slowly
reworking it to conform to CodingStyle whilst periodically comparing the
output bytecode with the original.
The result is a version which gives the exactly same
Add LZO1X compression/decompression support to the kernel.
This has been created by taking my originally proposed patch and slowly
reworking it to conform to CodingStyle whilst periodically comparing the
output bytecode with the original.
The result is a version which gives the exactly same
On 6/6/07, Richard Purdie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
Nitin: Have you any objections to this version? If not, I'll finish
analysing the PTR_ code changes and then hopefully we can get something
into -mm...
Your code now looks nice and clean. But I don't know what you want. I
already spent
10 matches
Mail list logo
