On Sun, 2018-10-14 at 10:24 -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Sun, 2018-10-14 at 16:25 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > 3.16.60-rc1 review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
>
> I believe that no stable or backport kernel needs to
> apply patches like this unless it's needed
On Sun, 2018-10-14 at 10:24 -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Sun, 2018-10-14 at 16:25 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > 3.16.60-rc1 review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
>
> I believe that no stable or backport kernel needs to
> apply patches like this unless it's needed
On Sun, 2018-10-14 at 16:25 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> 3.16.60-rc1 review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
I believe that no stable or backport kernel needs to
apply patches like this unless it's needed for other
real patches to be applied more easily.
>
On Sun, 2018-10-14 at 16:25 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> 3.16.60-rc1 review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
I believe that no stable or backport kernel needs to
apply patches like this unless it's needed for other
real patches to be applied more easily.
>
3.16.60-rc1 review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
--
From: Markus Elfring
commit 16a8ef2751801346f1f76a18685b2beb63cd170f upstream.
The iput() function tests whether its argument is NULL and then
returns immediately. Thus the test around the call is
3.16.60-rc1 review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
--
From: Markus Elfring
commit 16a8ef2751801346f1f76a18685b2beb63cd170f upstream.
The iput() function tests whether its argument is NULL and then
returns immediately. Thus the test around the call is
6 matches
Mail list logo