On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 07:55:20PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 6:12 PM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 06:03:42PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >> On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 05:52:04PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> >&g
On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 06:03:42PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 05:52:04PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > for_each_something(foo)
> > if (foo->bla)
> > call_bla(foo);
> > else
> > call_default(foo);
> >
> > Totally contrived, but this
On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 05:50:31AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 12:23:34PM +, David Laight wrote:
> > From: Chris Wilson
> > > Sent: 10 March 2020 11:50
> > >
> > > Quoting David Laight (2020-03-10 11:36:41)
> > > > From: Chris Wilson
> > > > > Sent: 10 March 2020
Hi Arnd,
This is great!
On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 11:27:43AM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> From: Arnd Bergmann
>
> During a patch discussion, Linus brought up the option of changing
> the C standard version from gnu89 to gnu99, which allows using variable
> declaration inside of a for() loop.
On Thu, Jan 05, 2023 at 03:57:25PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> It's more fun, for the atomic functions which don't have the atomic_
> prefix in their names, the __ prefixed versions provide the non-atomic
> implementation. This pattern was started with the long * bitops stuff for
> managing
