On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 2:49 PM, Bryan O'Donoghue
wrote:
>
>
> On 03/11/17 20:21, Kees Cook wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 5:05 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 5:01 PM, wrote:
On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 2:49 PM, Bryan O'Donoghue
wrote:
>
>
> On 03/11/17 20:21, Kees Cook wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 5:05 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 5:01 PM, wrote:
There's a separate change to loopback.c an old patch ARAIR that will
subtract
On 03/11/17 20:21, Kees Cook wrote:
On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 5:05 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 5:01 PM, wrote:
There's a separate change to loopback.c an old patch ARAIR that will subtract
use of the timer from
On 03/11/17 20:21, Kees Cook wrote:
On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 5:05 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 5:01 PM, wrote:
There's a separate change to loopback.c an old patch ARAIR that will subtract
use of the timer from loopback.c so you can skip that bit.
Okay, cool. Since the
On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 5:05 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 5:01 PM, wrote:
>> There's a separate change to loopback.c an old patch ARAIR that will
>> subtract use of the timer from loopback.c so you can skip that bit.
>
>
On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 5:05 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 5:01 PM, wrote:
>> There's a separate change to loopback.c an old patch ARAIR that will
>> subtract use of the timer from loopback.c so you can skip that bit.
>
> Okay, cool. Since the operation.c change is trivial,
On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 5:01 PM, wrote:
> On 30 October 2017 9:37:37 p.m. GMT+00:00, Kees Cook
> wrote:
>>On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 4:48 AM, Johan Hovold wrote:
>>> On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 11:44:22AM +, Bryan O'Donoghue
On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 5:01 PM, wrote:
> On 30 October 2017 9:37:37 p.m. GMT+00:00, Kees Cook
> wrote:
>>On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 4:48 AM, Johan Hovold wrote:
>>> On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 11:44:22AM +, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
On 30/10/17 11:38, Johan Hovold wrote:
> On
On 30 October 2017 9:37:37 p.m. GMT+00:00, Kees Cook
wrote:
>On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 4:48 AM, Johan Hovold wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 11:44:22AM +, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 30/10/17 11:38, Johan Hovold wrote:
>>> > On Mon, Oct
On 30 October 2017 9:37:37 p.m. GMT+00:00, Kees Cook
wrote:
>On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 4:48 AM, Johan Hovold wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 11:44:22AM +, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 30/10/17 11:38, Johan Hovold wrote:
>>> > On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 11:35:50AM +, Bryan
On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 4:48 AM, Johan Hovold wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 11:44:22AM +, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 30/10/17 11:38, Johan Hovold wrote:
>> > On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 11:35:50AM +, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
>> >> On 30/10/17 11:32, Johan Hovold
On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 4:48 AM, Johan Hovold wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 11:44:22AM +, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 30/10/17 11:38, Johan Hovold wrote:
>> > On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 11:35:50AM +, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
>> >> On 30/10/17 11:32, Johan Hovold wrote:
>> >>> The
On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 11:44:22AM +, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
>
>
> On 30/10/17 11:38, Johan Hovold wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 11:35:50AM +, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
> >> On 30/10/17 11:32, Johan Hovold wrote:
> >>> The right thing to do here is to respin your patch from last year
On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 11:44:22AM +, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
>
>
> On 30/10/17 11:38, Johan Hovold wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 11:35:50AM +, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
> >> On 30/10/17 11:32, Johan Hovold wrote:
> >>> The right thing to do here is to respin your patch from last year
On 30/10/17 11:38, Johan Hovold wrote:
On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 11:35:50AM +, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
On 30/10/17 11:32, Johan Hovold wrote:
The right thing to do here is to respin your patch from last year which
converts the loopback driver to use the timeout handling in greybus
core.
On 30/10/17 11:38, Johan Hovold wrote:
On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 11:35:50AM +, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
On 30/10/17 11:32, Johan Hovold wrote:
The right thing to do here is to respin your patch from last year which
converts the loopback driver to use the timeout handling in greybus
core.
On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 11:35:50AM +, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
> On 30/10/17 11:32, Johan Hovold wrote:
> > The right thing to do here is to respin your patch from last year which
> > converts the loopback driver to use the timeout handling in greybus
> > core.
>
> Actually I wasn't clear if
On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 11:35:50AM +, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
> On 30/10/17 11:32, Johan Hovold wrote:
> > The right thing to do here is to respin your patch from last year which
> > converts the loopback driver to use the timeout handling in greybus
> > core.
>
> Actually I wasn't clear if
[ Resend to Bryan's nexus-software address ]
On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 04:54:59PM +0100, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
> On 24/10/17 15:49, Kees Cook wrote:
> > In preparation for unconditionally passing the struct timer_list pointer to
> > all timer callbacks, switch to using the new timer_setup() and
On 30/10/17 11:32, Johan Hovold wrote:
The right thing to do here is to respin your patch from last year which
converts the loopback driver to use the timeout handling in greybus
core.
Actually I wasn't clear if you wanted to to that yourself aswell as the
rest if it.
But sure I can do that
[ Resend to Bryan's nexus-software address ]
On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 04:54:59PM +0100, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
> On 24/10/17 15:49, Kees Cook wrote:
> > In preparation for unconditionally passing the struct timer_list pointer to
> > all timer callbacks, switch to using the new timer_setup() and
On 30/10/17 11:32, Johan Hovold wrote:
The right thing to do here is to respin your patch from last year which
converts the loopback driver to use the timeout handling in greybus
core.
Actually I wasn't clear if you wanted to to that yourself aswell as the
rest if it.
But sure I can do that
On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 04:54:59PM +0100, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
> On 24/10/17 15:49, Kees Cook wrote:
> > In preparation for unconditionally passing the struct timer_list pointer to
> > all timer callbacks, switch to using the new timer_setup() and from_timer()
> > to pass the timer pointer
On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 04:54:59PM +0100, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
> On 24/10/17 15:49, Kees Cook wrote:
> > In preparation for unconditionally passing the struct timer_list pointer to
> > all timer callbacks, switch to using the new timer_setup() and from_timer()
> > to pass the timer pointer
On 24/10/17 15:49, Kees Cook wrote:
In preparation for unconditionally passing the struct timer_list pointer to
all timer callbacks, switch to using the new timer_setup() and from_timer()
to pass the timer pointer explicitly.
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman
Cc: "Bryan
On 24/10/17 15:49, Kees Cook wrote:
In preparation for unconditionally passing the struct timer_list pointer to
all timer callbacks, switch to using the new timer_setup() and from_timer()
to pass the timer pointer explicitly.
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman
Cc: "Bryan O'Donoghue"
Cc: Johan Hovold
Cc:
In preparation for unconditionally passing the struct timer_list pointer to
all timer callbacks, switch to using the new timer_setup() and from_timer()
to pass the timer pointer explicitly.
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman
Cc: "Bryan O'Donoghue"
In preparation for unconditionally passing the struct timer_list pointer to
all timer callbacks, switch to using the new timer_setup() and from_timer()
to pass the timer pointer explicitly.
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman
Cc: "Bryan O'Donoghue"
Cc: Johan Hovold
Cc: Alex Elder
Cc:
28 matches
Mail list logo