On 05/04/2011 17:21, Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Tue, Apr 05, 2011 at 05:03:43PM +0100, Jon TURNEY wrote:
On 04/04/2011 15:39, Christopher Faylor wrote:
I'm trying to imagine a scenario where it would screw up to just do the
reserve_upto + reserve the low block and I can't think of one. It's
On Wed, Apr 06, 2011 at 12:54:42PM +0100, Jon TURNEY wrote:
On 05/04/2011 17:21, Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Tue, Apr 05, 2011 at 05:03:43PM +0100, Jon TURNEY wrote:
On 04/04/2011 15:39, Christopher Faylor wrote:
I'm trying to imagine a scenario where it would screw up to just do the
On Tue, Apr 05, 2011 at 05:03:43PM +0100, Jon TURNEY wrote:
On 04/04/2011 15:39, Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Mon, Apr 04, 2011 at 01:42:54PM +0100, Jon TURNEY wrote:
Attached is an updated version of the patch which fixes the warning
identified
by Yaakov.
I've also attached a slightly
On 30/03/2011 22:29, Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 11:15:56PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
Chris, are you going to take a look into this patch?
yep.
Attached is an updated version of the patch which fixes the warning identified
by Yaakov.
I've also attached a slightly
On Mon, Apr 04, 2011 at 01:42:54PM +0100, Jon TURNEY wrote:
On 30/03/2011 22:29, Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 11:15:56PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
Chris, are you going to take a look into this patch?
yep.
Attached is an updated version of the patch which fixes the
Hi Jon,
On Mar 15 16:46, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Mar 15 11:04, Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 08:53:13AM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Mar 14 22:02, Jon TURNEY wrote:
On 13/03/2011 15:21, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
Thanks for the patch, but afaics you don't have
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 11:15:56PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
Hi Jon,
On Mar 15 16:46, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Mar 15 11:04, Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 08:53:13AM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Mar 14 22:02, Jon TURNEY wrote:
On 13/03/2011 15:21, Corinna
On 15/03/2011 23:37, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
On Sun, 2011-03-13 at 15:07 +, Jon TURNEY wrote:
Attached is a patch which avoids a fork failure due to remap error in the
specific circumstances described in my email [1], by adding an additional
pass
to load_after_fork() which forces the
On Mar 14 22:02, Jon TURNEY wrote:
On 13/03/2011 15:21, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
Thanks for the patch, but afaics you don't have a copyright assignment
on file with Red Hat. It's unfortunately required for substantial
patches. Please see http://cygwin.com/contrib.html, especially the
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 08:53:13AM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Mar 14 22:02, Jon TURNEY wrote:
On 13/03/2011 15:21, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
Thanks for the patch, but afaics you don't have a copyright assignment
on file with Red Hat. It's unfortunately required for substantial
On Mar 15 11:04, Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 08:53:13AM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Mar 14 22:02, Jon TURNEY wrote:
On 13/03/2011 15:21, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
Thanks for the patch, but afaics you don't have a copyright assignment
on file with Red Hat. It's
On Sun, 2011-03-13 at 15:07 +, Jon TURNEY wrote:
Attached is a patch which avoids a fork failure due to remap error in the
specific circumstances described in my email [1], by adding an additional pass
to load_after_fork() which forces the DLL to be relocated by VirtualAlloc()ing
a block
On 13/03/2011 15:21, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
Thanks for the patch, but afaics you don't have a copyright assignment
on file with Red Hat. It's unfortunately required for substantial
patches. Please see http://cygwin.com/contrib.html, especially the
Before you get started section.
No
13 matches
Mail list logo
