0-day Robot writes:
> Bleep bloop. Greetings Darrell Ball, I am a robot and I have tried out your
> patch.
> Thanks for your contribution.
>
> I encountered some error that I wasn't expecting. See the details below.
>
>
> checkpatch:
> ERROR: Too many signoffs; are you missing Co-authored-by
On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 1:49 PM, Ian Stokes wrote:
> On 7/5/2018 9:38 PM, Darrell Ball wrote:
>
>> Traditionally, for boolean variables we use boolean values.
>> Lets keep to that tradition.
>> Hopefully, using false with a bool works with gcc 6.3.1;
>> I use both recent versions of gcc (7.3) and
Bleep bloop. Greetings Darrell Ball, I am a robot and I have tried out your
patch.
Thanks for your contribution.
I encountered some error that I wasn't expecting. See the details below.
checkpatch:
ERROR: Too many signoffs; are you missing Co-authored-by lines?
Lines checked: 37, Warnings:
On Thu, Jul 05, 2018 at 01:38:47PM -0700, Darrell Ball wrote:
> Traditionally, for boolean variables we use boolean values.
> Lets keep to that tradition.
> Hopefully, using false with a bool works with gcc 6.3.1;
> I use both recent versions of gcc (7.3) and older
> versions (4.x), but did not
On 7/5/2018 9:38 PM, Darrell Ball wrote:
Traditionally, for boolean variables we use boolean values.
Lets keep to that tradition.
Hopefully, using false with a bool works with gcc 6.3.1;
I use both recent versions of gcc (7.3) and older
versions (4.x), but did not see the issue found in
Traditionally, for boolean variables we use boolean values.
Lets keep to that tradition.
Hopefully, using false with a bool works with gcc 6.3.1;
I use both recent versions of gcc (7.3) and older
versions (4.x), but did not see the issue found in
165c1f0649af commit.
Cc: Ian Stokes
Fixes:
