On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 03:57:21PM +0530, Sudip Mukherjee wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 01:05:55PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 03:21:28PM +0530, Sudip Mukherjee wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 12:30:03PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > > > I don't think I like
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 01:05:55PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 03:21:28PM +0530, Sudip Mukherjee wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 12:30:03PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > > I don't think I like these at all. remove_one has always been buggy in
> > > that it removes
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 03:21:28PM +0530, Sudip Mukherjee wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 12:30:03PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > I don't think I like these at all. remove_one has always been buggy in
> > that it removes everything. We should fix it to only remove one instead
> > of
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 12:30:03PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> I don't think I like these at all. remove_one has always been buggy in
> that it removes everything. We should fix it to only remove one instead
> of formalizing the currect terrible behavior.
Its already applied.
I thought after
I don't think I like these at all. remove_one has always been buggy in
that it removes everything. We should fix it to only remove one instead
of formalizing the currect terrible behavior.
regards,
dan carpenter
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 03:21:28PM +0530, Sudip Mukherjee wrote:
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 12:30:03PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
I don't think I like these at all. remove_one has always been buggy in
that it removes everything. We should fix it to only remove one instead
of formalizing the
I don't think I like these at all. remove_one has always been buggy in
that it removes everything. We should fix it to only remove one instead
of formalizing the currect terrible behavior.
regards,
dan carpenter
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 12:30:03PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
I don't think I like these at all. remove_one has always been buggy in
that it removes everything. We should fix it to only remove one instead
of formalizing the currect terrible behavior.
Its already applied.
I thought after the
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 01:05:55PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 03:21:28PM +0530, Sudip Mukherjee wrote:
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 12:30:03PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
I don't think I like these at all. remove_one has always been buggy in
that it removes
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 03:57:21PM +0530, Sudip Mukherjee wrote:
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 01:05:55PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 03:21:28PM +0530, Sudip Mukherjee wrote:
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 12:30:03PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
I don't think I like these at
The code in dgap_stop() is almost a duplicate of the code that will be
executed on pci_unregister_driver(). So the error code was stopping and
unregistering everything twice.
Signed-off-by: Sudip Mukherjee
---
we had a discussion about the init and error path few months back when
another patch
The code in dgap_stop() is almost a duplicate of the code that will be
executed on pci_unregister_driver(). So the error code was stopping and
unregistering everything twice.
Signed-off-by: Sudip Mukherjee su...@vectorindia.org
---
we had a discussion about the init and error path few months
12 matches
Mail list logo
