On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 1:53 AM, David Herrmann wrote:
> Sorry for the bike-shedding. Patch looks good, otherwise. With, or
> without, this changed, this is:
>
> Reviewed-by: David Herrmann
>
Thank you for the review David. I will send in a new patch with your
suggested changes.
--
Pranith
--
On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 1:53 AM, David Herrmann dh.herrm...@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry for the bike-shedding. Patch looks good, otherwise. With, or
without, this changed, this is:
Reviewed-by: David Herrmann dh.herrm...@gmail.com
Thank you for the review David. I will send in a new patch with
Hi
On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 7:08 PM, Pranith Kumar wrote:
> This test currently fails on 32-bit systems since we use u64 type to pass the
> flags to fcntl.
>
> This commit changes this to use 'unsigned int' type for flags to fcntl making
> it
> work on 32-bit systems.
>
> Signed-off-by: Pranith
Hi
On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 7:08 PM, Pranith Kumar bobby.pr...@gmail.com wrote:
This test currently fails on 32-bit systems since we use u64 type to pass the
flags to fcntl.
This commit changes this to use 'unsigned int' type for flags to fcntl making
it
work on 32-bit systems.
This test currently fails on 32-bit systems since we use u64 type to pass the
flags to fcntl.
This commit changes this to use 'unsigned int' type for flags to fcntl making it
work on 32-bit systems.
Signed-off-by: Pranith Kumar
---
v2: use 'unsigned int' instead of u32
This test currently fails on 32-bit systems since we use u64 type to pass the
flags to fcntl.
This commit changes this to use 'unsigned int' type for flags to fcntl making it
work on 32-bit systems.
Signed-off-by: Pranith Kumar bobby.pr...@gmail.com
---
v2: use 'unsigned int' instead of u32
6 matches
Mail list logo
