On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 6:35 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 09:54:25AM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 1:54 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>>
>> >> No, it is not what I was saying.
>>
>> I just mean the point is not mentioned in my commit log, but I admit it
On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 6:35 PM, Borislav Petkov b...@amd64.org wrote:
On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 09:54:25AM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 1:54 AM, Borislav Petkov b...@amd64.org wrote:
No, it is not what I was saying.
I just mean the point is not mentioned in my commit log,
On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 09:54:25AM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 1:54 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>
> >> No, it is not what I was saying.
>
> I just mean the point is not mentioned in my commit log, but I admit it should
> be a appropriate cause.
>
> >
> > Ok, maybe I'm not
On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 09:54:25AM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 1:54 AM, Borislav Petkov b...@amd64.org wrote:
No, it is not what I was saying.
I just mean the point is not mentioned in my commit log, but I admit it should
be a appropriate cause.
Ok, maybe I'm not
On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 1:54 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>> No, it is not what I was saying.
I just mean the point is not mentioned in my commit log, but I admit it should
be a appropriate cause.
>
> Ok, maybe I'm not understanding this then. So explain to me this: why
> do you need that
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 11:48:17PM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 8:36 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 01:00:12AM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> >> Because device_cache_firmwares only cache the firmware which has been
> >> loaded sucessfully at leat once, using
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 8:36 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 01:00:12AM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
>> Because device_cache_firmwares only cache the firmware which has been
>> loaded sucessfully at leat once, using a small loading timeout should
>
> least
>
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 01:00:12AM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> Because device_cache_firmwares only cache the firmware which has been
> loaded sucessfully at leat once, using a small loading timeout should
least
> be OK.
Your commit message doesn't explain why exactly we
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 01:00:12AM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
Because device_cache_firmwares only cache the firmware which has been
loaded sucessfully at leat once, using a small loading timeout should
least
be OK.
Your commit message doesn't explain why exactly we
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 8:36 PM, Borislav Petkov b...@amd64.org wrote:
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 01:00:12AM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
Because device_cache_firmwares only cache the firmware which has been
loaded sucessfully at leat once, using a small loading timeout should
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 11:48:17PM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 8:36 PM, Borislav Petkov b...@amd64.org wrote:
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 01:00:12AM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
Because device_cache_firmwares only cache the firmware which has been
loaded sucessfully at leat once,
On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 1:54 AM, Borislav Petkov b...@amd64.org wrote:
No, it is not what I was saying.
I just mean the point is not mentioned in my commit log, but I admit it should
be a appropriate cause.
Ok, maybe I'm not understanding this then. So explain to me this: why
do you need
Because device_cache_firmwares only cache the firmware which has been
loaded sucessfully at leat once, using a small loading timeout should
be OK.
Signed-off-by: Ming Lei
---
drivers/base/firmware_class.c | 11 +++
1 file changed, 11 insertions(+)
diff --git
Because device_cache_firmwares only cache the firmware which has been
loaded sucessfully at leat once, using a small loading timeout should
be OK.
Signed-off-by: Ming Lei ming@canonical.com
---
drivers/base/firmware_class.c | 11 +++
1 file changed, 11 insertions(+)
diff --git
14 matches
Mail list logo
