On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 7:35 AM Ulf Hansson wrote:
> On 3 July 2018 at 04:25, Fabio Estevam wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 11:13 PM, Anson Huang wrote:
> >
> >> I think either way is OK, since flexible array is used in kernel code
> >> quite commonly,
> >> so I prefer to make code change as
On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 7:35 AM Ulf Hansson wrote:
> On 3 July 2018 at 04:25, Fabio Estevam wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 11:13 PM, Anson Huang wrote:
> >
> >> I think either way is OK, since flexible array is used in kernel code
> >> quite commonly,
> >> so I prefer to make code change as
On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 2:42 PM, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 3:32 AM Anson Huang wrote:
>> - char cd_label[0];
>> + char cd_label[];
>
> Not that I am the smartest in the world when it comes to how the
> C compilers work this out.
>
> But isn't that equivalent to:
>
On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 2:42 PM, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 3:32 AM Anson Huang wrote:
>> - char cd_label[0];
>> + char cd_label[];
>
> Not that I am the smartest in the world when it comes to how the
> C compilers work this out.
>
> But isn't that equivalent to:
>
On 3 July 2018 at 04:25, Fabio Estevam wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 11:13 PM, Anson Huang wrote:
>
>> I think either way is OK, since flexible array is used in kernel code quite
>> commonly,
>> so I prefer to make code change as small as possible, the original patch can
>> also prevent
>>
On 3 July 2018 at 04:25, Fabio Estevam wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 11:13 PM, Anson Huang wrote:
>
>> I think either way is OK, since flexible array is used in kernel code quite
>> commonly,
>> so I prefer to make code change as small as possible, the original patch can
>> also prevent
>>
On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 11:13 PM, Anson Huang wrote:
> I think either way is OK, since flexible array is used in kernel code quite
> commonly,
> so I prefer to make code change as small as possible, the original patch can
> also prevent
> similar bug in future. And like below commit Fabio
On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 11:13 PM, Anson Huang wrote:
> I think either way is OK, since flexible array is used in kernel code quite
> commonly,
> so I prefer to make code change as small as possible, the original patch can
> also prevent
> similar bug in future. And like below commit Fabio
Fabio Estevam ;
> linux-mmc ; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org;
> dl-linux-imx
> Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] mmc: core: cd_label must be last entry of mmc_gpio
> struct
>
> On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 3:32 AM Anson Huang
> wrote:
>
> > commit bfd694d5e21c ("mmc: c
Fabio Estevam ;
> linux-mmc ; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org;
> dl-linux-imx
> Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] mmc: core: cd_label must be last entry of mmc_gpio
> struct
>
> On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 3:32 AM Anson Huang
> wrote:
>
> > commit bfd694d5e21c ("mmc: c
Hi Linus,
On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 8:42 AM, Linus Walleij wrote:
> What about this:
>
> From facb3799f479bfd4dad99c25c9c5d4c77b14c9b0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Linus Walleij
> Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2018 13:35:01 +0200
> Subject: [PATCH] mmc: slot-gpio: Allocate GPIO labels dynamically
>
> The
Hi Linus,
On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 8:42 AM, Linus Walleij wrote:
> What about this:
>
> From facb3799f479bfd4dad99c25c9c5d4c77b14c9b0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Linus Walleij
> Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2018 13:35:01 +0200
> Subject: [PATCH] mmc: slot-gpio: Allocate GPIO labels dynamically
>
> The
On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 3:32 AM Anson Huang wrote:
> commit bfd694d5e21c ("mmc: core: Add tunable delay
> before detecting card after card is inserted") adds
> "u32 cd_debounce_delay_ms" to the last of mmc_gpio
> struct and cause "char cd_label[0]" NOT work as string
> pointer of card detect
On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 3:32 AM Anson Huang wrote:
> commit bfd694d5e21c ("mmc: core: Add tunable delay
> before detecting card after card is inserted") adds
> "u32 cd_debounce_delay_ms" to the last of mmc_gpio
> struct and cause "char cd_label[0]" NOT work as string
> pointer of card detect
14 matches
Mail list logo
