Hi Liang--
On 10/30/2017 05:33 AM, Liang C wrote:
> Hi Michael,
> Would you please to include this patch in your tree for the next
> release? It seems passed the review. Thank you.
>
> Thanks,
> Liang
Thanks for the reminder.
It's in my bcache-for-next tree at https://github.com/mlyle/linux/
Hi Liang--
On 10/30/2017 05:33 AM, Liang C wrote:
> Hi Michael,
> Would you please to include this patch in your tree for the next
> release? It seems passed the review. Thank you.
>
> Thanks,
> Liang
Thanks for the reminder.
It's in my bcache-for-next tree at https://github.com/mlyle/linux/
Hi Michael,
Would you please to include this patch in your tree for the next
release? It seems passed the review. Thank you.
Thanks,
Liang
On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 11:44 PM, Michael Lyle wrote:
> On 10/10/2017 05:25 AM, Coly Li wrote:
>> On 2017/10/10 下午5:00, Liang Chen wrote:
Hi Michael,
Would you please to include this patch in your tree for the next
release? It seems passed the review. Thank you.
Thanks,
Liang
On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 11:44 PM, Michael Lyle wrote:
> On 10/10/2017 05:25 AM, Coly Li wrote:
>> On 2017/10/10 下午5:00, Liang Chen wrote:
>>> mutex_destroy
On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 12:05 PM, Eric Wheeler
wrote:
> Should this Cc: stable to avoid the register race (possible
> crash?) described by Liang in other stable kernels?
>
> Reviewed-by: Eric Wheeler
This seems like an unlikely failure;
On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 12:05 PM, Eric Wheeler
wrote:
> Should this Cc: stable to avoid the register race (possible
> crash?) described by Liang in other stable kernels?
>
> Reviewed-by: Eric Wheeler
This seems like an unlikely failure; basically you must have built
bcache for debug (which not
On Tue, 10 Oct 2017, Michael Lyle wrote:
> On 10/10/2017 05:25 AM, Coly Li wrote:
> > On 2017/10/10 下午5:00, Liang Chen wrote:
> >> mutex_destroy does nothing most of time, but it's better to call
> >> it to make the code future proof and it also has some meaning
> >> for like mutex debug.
> >>
>
On Tue, 10 Oct 2017, Michael Lyle wrote:
> On 10/10/2017 05:25 AM, Coly Li wrote:
> > On 2017/10/10 下午5:00, Liang Chen wrote:
> >> mutex_destroy does nothing most of time, but it's better to call
> >> it to make the code future proof and it also has some meaning
> >> for like mutex debug.
> >>
>
On 10/10/2017 05:25 AM, Coly Li wrote:
> On 2017/10/10 下午5:00, Liang Chen wrote:
>> mutex_destroy does nothing most of time, but it's better to call
>> it to make the code future proof and it also has some meaning
>> for like mutex debug.
>>
>> As Coly pointed out in a previous review,
On 10/10/2017 05:25 AM, Coly Li wrote:
> On 2017/10/10 下午5:00, Liang Chen wrote:
>> mutex_destroy does nothing most of time, but it's better to call
>> it to make the code future proof and it also has some meaning
>> for like mutex debug.
>>
>> As Coly pointed out in a previous review,
On 2017/10/10 下午5:00, Liang Chen wrote:
> mutex_destroy does nothing most of time, but it's better to call
> it to make the code future proof and it also has some meaning
> for like mutex debug.
>
> As Coly pointed out in a previous review, bcache_exit() may not be
> able to handle all the
On 2017/10/10 下午5:00, Liang Chen wrote:
> mutex_destroy does nothing most of time, but it's better to call
> it to make the code future proof and it also has some meaning
> for like mutex debug.
>
> As Coly pointed out in a previous review, bcache_exit() may not be
> able to handle all the
mutex_destroy does nothing most of time, but it's better to call
it to make the code future proof and it also has some meaning
for like mutex debug.
As Coly pointed out in a previous review, bcache_exit() may not be
able to handle all the references properly if userspace registers
cache and
mutex_destroy does nothing most of time, but it's better to call
it to make the code future proof and it also has some meaning
for like mutex debug.
As Coly pointed out in a previous review, bcache_exit() may not be
able to handle all the references properly if userspace registers
cache and
14 matches
Mail list logo