On Fri, Oct 07, 2016 at 10:15:19AM +0300, Joonas Lahtinen wrote:
> On to, 2016-10-06 at 16:36 +0300, ville.syrj...@linux.intel.com wrote:
> > From: Ville Syrjälä
> >
> > debugfs_wedged and drm_lib.sh are already using bashism so switch
> > over
> > to using #!/bin/bash instead of #!/bin/sh.
> >
On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 04:04:34PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Oct 2016, Joonas Lahtinen wrote:
> > On ke, 2016-10-12 at 14:16 +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
> >> If you really care, go ahead and send the patches to make these Bourne
> >> shell compatible, but then do also sign up for testin
On Wed, 12 Oct 2016, Joonas Lahtinen wrote:
> On ke, 2016-10-12 at 14:16 +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
>> If you really care, go ahead and send the patches to make these Bourne
>> shell compatible, but then do also sign up for testing them on non-bash
>> shells. The CI won't. I don't think it's worth
On ke, 2016-10-12 at 14:16 +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
> If you really care, go ahead and send the patches to make these Bourne
> shell compatible, but then do also sign up for testing them on non-bash
> shells. The CI won't. I don't think it's worth the trouble, but YMMV.
If they're re-written usin
On Wed, 12 Oct 2016, David Weinehall wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 07, 2016 at 12:54:03PM +0300, Joonas Lahtinen wrote:
>> On pe, 2016-10-07 at 10:38 +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
>> > The "change" to use bash just reflects current reality. All the changes
>> > here look simple and sane, and immediately improv
On ke, 2016-10-12 at 13:12 +0300, David Weinehall wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 07, 2016 at 12:54:03PM +0300, Joonas Lahtinen wrote:
> > I'm against converting to bash/python for no
> > benefit.
>
> +1, Insightful.
>
> Most of the bashisms seem to be simple cases of the superfluous
> "function" in front o
On Fri, Oct 07, 2016 at 12:54:03PM +0300, Joonas Lahtinen wrote:
> On pe, 2016-10-07 at 10:38 +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
> > The "change" to use bash just reflects current reality. All the changes
> > here look simple and sane, and immediately improve the results. The work
> > is already done, no us
On pe, 2016-10-07 at 10:38 +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
> The "change" to use bash just reflects current reality. All the changes
> here look simple and sane, and immediately improve the results. The work
> is already done, no use blocking them because someone might eventually
> rewrite them in C. (An
On Fri, 07 Oct 2016, Joonas Lahtinen wrote:
> On to, 2016-10-06 at 16:36 +0300, ville.syrj...@linux.intel.com wrote:
>> From: Ville Syrjälä
>>
>> debugfs_wedged and drm_lib.sh are already using bashism so switch
>> over
>> to using #!/bin/bash instead of #!/bin/sh.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Ville Sy
On to, 2016-10-06 at 16:36 +0300, ville.syrj...@linux.intel.com wrote:
> From: Ville Syrjälä
>
> debugfs_wedged and drm_lib.sh are already using bashism so switch
> over
> to using #!/bin/bash instead of #!/bin/sh.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ville Syrjälä
Just reminds me of my RFC to convert them all
10 matches
Mail list logo