On 4/13/07, Dave Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, Apr 13, 2007 at 03:18:32PM -0400, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> Hi Dave,
>
> On 4/13/07, Dave Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I just had a user file the report below, which iirc, was deemed a false
> > positive. Didn't we add somethi
On Fri, Apr 13, 2007 at 03:18:32PM -0400, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> Hi Dave,
>
> On 4/13/07, Dave Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I just had a user file the report below, which iirc, was deemed a false
> > positive. Didn't we add something to the code so that lockdep would
> > ignore wh
Hi Dave,
On 4/13/07, Dave Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I just had a user file the report below, which iirc, was deemed a false
positive. Didn't we add something to the code so that lockdep would
ignore what this was doing ? Did we regress?
For some reasn lockdep annotations cease to wor
I just had a user file the report below, which iirc, was deemed a false
positive. Didn't we add something to the code so that lockdep would
ignore what this was doing ? Did we regress?
(This was .21-rc5, during resume)
Dave
> =
> [ INFO: po
4 matches
Mail list logo