On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 5:00 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 5:09 AM Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
>>
>> When getting rid of the general ipc_lock(), this was missed
>> furthermore, making the comment around the ipc object validity
>> check bogus. Under EIDRM conditions, callers will
On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 5:00 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 5:09 AM Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
>>
>> When getting rid of the general ipc_lock(), this was missed
>> furthermore, making the comment around the ipc object validity
>> check bogus. Under EIDRM conditions, callers will
On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 5:09 AM Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
>
> When getting rid of the general ipc_lock(), this was missed
> furthermore, making the comment around the ipc object validity
> check bogus. Under EIDRM conditions, callers will in turn not
> see the error and continue with the operation.
On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 5:09 AM Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
>
> When getting rid of the general ipc_lock(), this was missed
> furthermore, making the comment around the ipc object validity
> check bogus. Under EIDRM conditions, callers will in turn not
> see the error and continue with the operation.
When getting rid of the general ipc_lock(), this was missed
furthermore, making the comment around the ipc object validity
check bogus. Under EIDRM conditions, callers will in turn not
see the error and continue with the operation.
Fixes: 82061c57ce9 (ipc: drop ipc_lock())
Signed-off-by:
When getting rid of the general ipc_lock(), this was missed
furthermore, making the comment around the ipc object validity
check bogus. Under EIDRM conditions, callers will in turn not
see the error and continue with the operation.
Fixes: 82061c57ce9 (ipc: drop ipc_lock())
Signed-off-by:
6 matches
Mail list logo