Oomph, how embarrassing. Thanks for pointing that out!
Would it be better if I rerolled the patches?
- Brian Gesiak
On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 12:25 PM, Eric Sunshine sunsh...@sunshineco.com wrote:
On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 11:33 AM, Brian Gesiak modoca...@gmail.com wrote:
xcalloc takes two
On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 7:32 AM, Brian Gesiak modoca...@gmail.com wrote:
Oomph, how embarrassing. Thanks for pointing that out!
Etiquette on this list is to avoid top-posting [1].
[1]: https://lkml.org/lkml/2005/1/11/111
Would it be better if I rerolled the patches?
Junio may or may not make
Eric Sunshine sunsh...@sunshineco.com writes:
If you do re-roll, perhaps consider simplifying the commit messages.
The patch itself states concisely and precisely what is being changed;
the lengthy prose description doesn't really add anything (and makes
more work for you and the reader of
On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 05:35:29PM -0400, Eric Sunshine wrote:
On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 7:32 AM, Brian Gesiak modoca...@gmail.com wrote:
Oomph, how embarrassing. Thanks for pointing that out!
Etiquette on this list is to avoid top-posting [1].
[1]: https://lkml.org/lkml/2005/1/11/111
A:
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 7:41 AM, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote:
I do not think it is worth doing this change starting from maint, so
I've dropped this one and a few others that did not apply to master
and queued the remainder to 'pu'.
Thank you! I'll keep this in mind when choosing
xcalloc takes two arguments: the number of elements and their size.
run_add_interactive passes the arguments in reverse order, passing the
size of a char*, followed by the number of char* to be allocated.
Rearrgange them so they are in the correct order.
Signed-off-by: Brian Gesiak
Brian,
On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 12:33:42AM +0900, Brian Gesiak wrote:
xcalloc takes two arguments: the number of elements and their size.
run_add_interactive passes the arguments in reverse order, passing the
size of a char*, followed by the number of char* to be allocated.
Rearrgange them so
My apologies! I based my work off of maint, branching off of eea591.
My reasoning was that Documentation/SubmittingPatches states that a
bugfix should be based on 'maint'. [1] Now that I think about it,
this is probably not the kind of bug that statement had in mind.
Should I reroll the patch
On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 11:22:00AM +0900, Brian Gesiak wrote:
My apologies! I based my work off of maint, branching off of eea591.
My reasoning was that Documentation/SubmittingPatches states that a
bugfix should be based on 'maint'. [1] Now that I think about it,
this is probably not the
On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 11:33 AM, Brian Gesiak modoca...@gmail.com wrote:
xcalloc takes two arguments: the number of elements and their size.
run_add_interactive passes the arguments in reverse order, passing the
size of a char*, followed by the number of char* to be allocated.
Rearrgange them
10 matches
Mail list logo