On Wed, 2012-10-03 at 20:32 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-10-03 at 08:38 -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Wed, 2012-10-03 at 11:14 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > > I first check
> > > the MAINTAINERS file. If the subsystem I'm working on exists there, I
> > > only email those that a
On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 7:46 AM, Daniel Santos wrote:
> On 10/03/2012 09:01 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>> You don't need to use get_maintainers. It's more of a help tool to find
>> maintainers and not something that is mandatory. Not everyone that has
>> ever touched one of these files needs to be C
On 10/03/2012 07:32 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-10-03 at 08:38 -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
>> On Wed, 2012-10-03 at 11:14 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>>> I first check
>>> the MAINTAINERS file. If the subsystem I'm working on exists there, I
>>> only email those that are listed there, i
On Wed, 2012-10-03 at 08:38 -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-10-03 at 11:14 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > I first check
> > the MAINTAINERS file. If the subsystem I'm working on exists there, I
> > only email those that are listed there, including any mailing lists that
> > are mentioned
On Wed, 2012-10-03 at 11:14 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> I first check
> the MAINTAINERS file. If the subsystem I'm working on exists there, I
> only email those that are listed there, including any mailing lists that
> are mentioned (as well as LKML). If it's not listed, I then do a git log
> an
On Wed, 2012-10-03 at 11:14 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> Yep. I personally never use the get_maintainers script. I first check
> the MAINTAINERS file. If the subsystem I'm working on exists there, I
> only email those that are listed there, including any mailing lists that
> are mentioned (as
On Wed, 2012-10-03 at 09:46 -0500, Daniel Santos wrote:
> > Please move the patch to the patch series where it is used. Otherwise it
> > confuses reviewers as it did here.
> Ok then, but this would also apply to the addition of these macros as well:
> BUILD_BUG_ON_NON_CONST
> BUILD_BUG42
> BUILD_B
On 10/03/2012 09:01 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-10-03 at 06:20 -0500, Daniel Santos wrote:
>
>>> Daniel, please introduce __flatten in the patch series that uses it,
>>> thanks.
>> That isn't going to work. I split my patches out into three sets
>> because, otherwise, the list of main
On Wed, 2012-10-03 at 06:20 -0500, Daniel Santos wrote:
> > Daniel, please introduce __flatten in the patch series that uses it,
> > thanks.
> That isn't going to work. I split my patches out into three sets
> because, otherwise, the list of maintainers that must be CCed exceeds
> the allowable s
On 10/03/2012 02:53 AM, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Oct 2012, Josh Triplett wrote:
>
>> This patch series started out as part of another patch series by Daniel
>> Santos that makes use of __flatten; I think Daniel plans to have that
>> patch series depend on this one. Thus, I think it makes
On Tue, 2 Oct 2012, Josh Triplett wrote:
> This patch series started out as part of another patch series by Daniel
> Santos that makes use of __flatten; I think Daniel plans to have that
> patch series depend on this one. Thus, I think it makes sense to
> introduce __flatten at this point.
>
Da
On Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 11:49:03PM -0700, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Sep 2012, Josh Triplett wrote:
>
> > That issue doesn't relate to __flatten, though; it only relates to
> > __weak. Since __flatten (and __compiletime_object_size) will work fine
> > on 4.1.0 and 4.1.1, don't exclude the
On Fri, 28 Sep 2012, Josh Triplett wrote:
> That issue doesn't relate to __flatten, though; it only relates to
> __weak. Since __flatten (and __compiletime_object_size) will work fine
> on 4.1.0 and 4.1.1, don't exclude them just because the definition for
> __weak elsewhere in the file excludes
On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 07:38:32PM -0500, Daniel Santos wrote:
> On 09/28/2012 07:26 PM, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 06:20:08PM -0500, Daniel Santos wrote:
> >> --- a/include/linux/compiler-gcc4.h
> >> +++ b/include/linux/compiler-gcc4.h
> >> @@ -15,7 +15,12 @@
> >>
> >> #if
On 09/28/2012 07:26 PM, Josh Triplett wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 06:20:08PM -0500, Daniel Santos wrote:
>> --- a/include/linux/compiler-gcc4.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/compiler-gcc4.h
>> @@ -15,7 +15,12 @@
>>
>> #if GCC_VERSION >= 40102
>> # define __compiletime_object_size(obj) __builtin_o
On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 06:20:08PM -0500, Daniel Santos wrote:
> --- a/include/linux/compiler-gcc4.h
> +++ b/include/linux/compiler-gcc4.h
> @@ -15,7 +15,12 @@
>
> #if GCC_VERSION >= 40102
> # define __compiletime_object_size(obj) __builtin_object_size(obj, 0)
> -#endif
> +
> +/* flatten introd
For gcc 4.1 & later, expands to __attribute__((flatten)) which forces
the compiler to inline everything it can into the function. This is
useful in combination with noinline when you want to control the depth
of inlining, or create a single function where inline expansions will
occur. (see
http://
17 matches
Mail list logo
