Thank you for your valuable information: it will let kernel waste mails
less, and also can save my time resources.
On 09/04/2013 04:59 AM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 03, 2013 at 08:39:38PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 03, 2013 at 11:52:17AM +0800, Chen Gang F T wrote:
>>
>>>
On Tue, Sep 03, 2013 at 08:39:38PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 03, 2013 at 11:52:17AM +0800, Chen Gang F T wrote:
>
> > extreme sample: let 'kernel code style' and 'gcc code style' in one file,
> > that will make the code very ugly.
>
> gcc style will make any code very ugly, no
On Tue, Sep 03, 2013 at 11:52:17AM +0800, Chen Gang F T wrote:
> extreme sample: let 'kernel code style' and 'gcc code style' in one file,
> that will make the code very ugly.
gcc style will make any code very ugly, no matter what (if anything) else is
in the same file...
[digs out the ports
On Tue, Sep 03, 2013 at 11:52:17AM +0800, Chen Gang F T wrote:
extreme sample: let 'kernel code style' and 'gcc code style' in one file,
that will make the code very ugly.
gcc style will make any code very ugly, no matter what (if anything) else is
in the same file...
[digs out the ports
On Tue, Sep 03, 2013 at 08:39:38PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
On Tue, Sep 03, 2013 at 11:52:17AM +0800, Chen Gang F T wrote:
extreme sample: let 'kernel code style' and 'gcc code style' in one file,
that will make the code very ugly.
gcc style will make any code very ugly, no matter what
Thank you for your valuable information: it will let kernel waste mails
less, and also can save my time resources.
On 09/04/2013 04:59 AM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
On Tue, Sep 03, 2013 at 08:39:38PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
On Tue, Sep 03, 2013 at 11:52:17AM +0800, Chen Gang F T wrote:
extreme
On 09/03/2013 11:26 AM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 09/02/2013 07:53 PM, Chen Gang F T wrote:
>> Hello Guenter Roeck:
>>
>>
>> I don't care about whether I am in cc mailing list, but at least,
>> please help confirm 2 things:
>>
>>Is what I had done for h8300 just making wastes and noisy in
On 09/02/2013 07:53 PM, Chen Gang F T wrote:
> Hello Guenter Roeck:
>
>
> I don't care about whether I am in cc mailing list, but at least,
> please help confirm 2 things:
>
>Is what I had done for h8300 just making wastes and noisy in kernel and
> related sub-system mailing list ?
>
>
Hello Guenter Roeck:
I don't care about whether I am in cc mailing list, but at least,
please help confirm 2 things:
Is what I had done for h8300 just making wastes and noisy in kernel and
related sub-system mailing list ?
and is the disccusion about h8300 between us also wastes and noisy
Hello Guenter Roeck:
I don't care about whether I am in cc mailing list, but at least,
please help confirm 2 things:
Is what I had done for h8300 just making wastes and noisy in kernel and
related sub-system mailing list ?
and is the disccusion about h8300 between us also wastes and noisy
On 09/02/2013 07:53 PM, Chen Gang F T wrote:
Hello Guenter Roeck:
I don't care about whether I am in cc mailing list, but at least,
please help confirm 2 things:
Is what I had done for h8300 just making wastes and noisy in kernel and
related sub-system mailing list ?
and is
On 09/03/2013 11:26 AM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
On 09/02/2013 07:53 PM, Chen Gang F T wrote:
Hello Guenter Roeck:
I don't care about whether I am in cc mailing list, but at least,
please help confirm 2 things:
Is what I had done for h8300 just making wastes and noisy in kernel and
H8/300 has been dead for several years, the kernel for it has
not compiled for ages, and recent versions of gcc for it are broken.
It is time to drop support for it.
Yes, I understand it is not that simple to drop an architecture,
and it may need some discussion, but someone has to put a stake
H8/300 has been dead for several years, the kernel for it has
not compiled for ages, and recent versions of gcc for it are broken.
It is time to drop support for it.
Yes, I understand it is not that simple to drop an architecture,
and it may need some discussion, but someone has to put a stake
14 matches
Mail list logo
