On 12 February 2018 at 11:38, Lucas Stach wrote:
> Am Freitag, den 09.02.2018, 14:58 +0100 schrieb Ulf Hansson:
>> On 26 January 2018 at 09:38, Jia-Ju Bai
>> wrote:
>> > After checking all possible call chains to genpd_dev_pm_detach()
>> > and
>> >
On 12 February 2018 at 11:38, Lucas Stach wrote:
> Am Freitag, den 09.02.2018, 14:58 +0100 schrieb Ulf Hansson:
>> On 26 January 2018 at 09:38, Jia-Ju Bai
>> wrote:
>> > After checking all possible call chains to genpd_dev_pm_detach()
>> > and
>> > genpd_dev_pm_attach() here,
>> > my tool finds
Am Freitag, den 09.02.2018, 14:58 +0100 schrieb Ulf Hansson:
> On 26 January 2018 at 09:38, Jia-Ju Bai
> wrote:
> > After checking all possible call chains to genpd_dev_pm_detach()
> > and
> > genpd_dev_pm_attach() here,
> > my tool finds that these functions are never
Am Freitag, den 09.02.2018, 14:58 +0100 schrieb Ulf Hansson:
> On 26 January 2018 at 09:38, Jia-Ju Bai
> wrote:
> > After checking all possible call chains to genpd_dev_pm_detach()
> > and
> > genpd_dev_pm_attach() here,
> > my tool finds that these functions are never called in atomic
> >
On 26 January 2018 at 09:38, Jia-Ju Bai wrote:
> After checking all possible call chains to genpd_dev_pm_detach() and
> genpd_dev_pm_attach() here,
> my tool finds that these functions are never called in atomic context,
> namely never in an interrupt handler or holding a
On 26 January 2018 at 09:38, Jia-Ju Bai wrote:
> After checking all possible call chains to genpd_dev_pm_detach() and
> genpd_dev_pm_attach() here,
> my tool finds that these functions are never called in atomic context,
> namely never in an interrupt handler or holding a spinlock.
> Thus mdelay
On Friday, January 26, 2018 9:38:19 AM CET Jia-Ju Bai wrote:
> After checking all possible call chains to genpd_dev_pm_detach() and
> genpd_dev_pm_attach() here,
> my tool finds that these functions are never called in atomic context,
> namely never in an interrupt handler or holding a spinlock.
>
On Friday, January 26, 2018 9:38:19 AM CET Jia-Ju Bai wrote:
> After checking all possible call chains to genpd_dev_pm_detach() and
> genpd_dev_pm_attach() here,
> my tool finds that these functions are never called in atomic context,
> namely never in an interrupt handler or holding a spinlock.
>
On 2018/1/26 18:26, Pavel Machek wrote:
On Fri 2018-01-26 16:38:19, Jia-Ju Bai wrote:
After checking all possible call chains to genpd_dev_pm_detach() and
genpd_dev_pm_attach() here,
my tool finds that these functions are never called in atomic context,
namely never in an interrupt handler or
On 2018/1/26 18:26, Pavel Machek wrote:
On Fri 2018-01-26 16:38:19, Jia-Ju Bai wrote:
After checking all possible call chains to genpd_dev_pm_detach() and
genpd_dev_pm_attach() here,
my tool finds that these functions are never called in atomic context,
namely never in an interrupt handler or
On Fri 2018-01-26 16:38:19, Jia-Ju Bai wrote:
> After checking all possible call chains to genpd_dev_pm_detach() and
> genpd_dev_pm_attach() here,
> my tool finds that these functions are never called in atomic context,
> namely never in an interrupt handler or holding a spinlock.
> Thus mdelay
On Fri 2018-01-26 16:38:19, Jia-Ju Bai wrote:
> After checking all possible call chains to genpd_dev_pm_detach() and
> genpd_dev_pm_attach() here,
> my tool finds that these functions are never called in atomic context,
> namely never in an interrupt handler or holding a spinlock.
> Thus mdelay
12 matches
Mail list logo