On 16 April 2014 00:12, Thomas Gleixner <t...@linutronix.de> wrote: > B1;3202;0c
What does this mean ?? > On Tue, 15 Apr 2014, Viresh Kumar wrote: > >> tick_check_replacement() returns if a replacement of clock_event_device is >> possible or not. It does this as the first check: >> >> if (tick_check_percpu(curdev, newdev, smp_processor_id())) >> return false; >> >> This looks wrong as we are returning false when tick_check_percpu() returned >> true. Probably Thomas forgot '!' here in his commit: 03e13cf5e ? > > Come on. You can do better changelogs. :( > "This looks wrong" is definitely not a good description of the > problem. > > Either you know WHY it is wrong, then you say so. If not, then you can > send an RFC. > > I fixed the changelog up this time. Thanks, will take care of such stuff in future. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/