On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 5:14 AM, Tero Roponen tero.ropo...@gmail.com
wrote:
Testing for y x is the same as testing for x y.
-if (y x)
+if (x y)
snip
I thing you forgot to change the signs ;)
___
systemd-devel mailing list
On 10/10/13 12:38, Carlos Silva wrote:
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 5:14 AM, Tero Roponen tero.ropo...@gmail.com
wrote:
Testing for y x is the same as testing for x y.
-if (y x)
+if (x y)
snip
I thing you forgot to change the signs ;)
No, I believe that was the
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 11:21 AM, Olivier Brunel j...@jjacky.com wrote:
No, I believe that was the point of the patch. The two tests were the
same, first testing (x y), and then (y x). Now it then properly
tests for (x y)
Totally didn't read the context of the code, just the changes and
On Thu, 10.10.13 08:14, Tero Roponen (tero.ropo...@gmail.com) wrote:
Testing for y x is the same as testing for x y.
Thanks!
Applied!
Lennart
--
Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc.
___
systemd-devel mailing list
