Hi Emre,
> On Jul 1, 2016, at 2:34 AM, Ucan, Emre (ADITG/SW1)
> wrote:
>
> Signed-off-by: Emre Ucan
Since `zalloc(sizeof *foo)` just inlines calloc(1, sizeof *foo),
the patch is fine. However, I'd like to make a couple comments.
First, please add
On Jul 4, 2016, at 7:00 AM, Quentin Glidic
wrote:
>
> From: Quentin Glidic
>
> Signed-off-by: Quentin Glidic
Seems trivial enough, and is
Reviewed-by: Yong Bakos
However,
On Jul 4, 2016, at 7:23 AM, Emil Velikov wrote:
>
> From: Emil Velikov
>
> v2: Rewrap, add a couple of missing words (Pekka).
> v3: Use alternative wording (Yong).
>
> Signed-off-by: Emil Velikov
Reviewed-by:
On Jul 7, 2016, at 8:52 AM, Derek Foreman wrote:
>
> We're leaking the fd when sending cut'n'paste. Failure to close can also
> makes the other end unhappy because it doesn't know the paste is finished.
>
> Signed-off-by: Derek Foreman
On Jul 8, 2016, at 10:42 AM, Derek Foreman wrote:
>
> Currently we generate a serial and pass it through a couple of functions.
>
> In a future commit I'm going to throttle pings in the leaf function, so
> generating them there prevents consuming them needlessly.
>
>
From: Quentin Glidic
Currently, layers’ order depends on the module loading order and it does
not survive runtime modifications (like shell locking/unlocking).
With this patch, modules can safely add their own layer at the expected
position in the stack, with runtime
On Sat, 9 Jul 2016 05:19:26 +0200 (CEST)
Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> On Thursday 2016-07-07 11:46, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> >> >> +AC_SUBST([LIBWESTON_VERSION],
> >> >> [libweston_major_version.libweston_minor_version.libweston_patch_version])
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > That makes
On Fri, 8 Jul 2016 11:31:42 +0100
Emil Velikov wrote:
> On 7 July 2016 at 19:18, Quentin Glidic
> wrote:
> > On 07/07/2016 18:28, Emil Velikov wrote:
> >>
> >> On 7 July 2016 at 10:20, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
>
On Thu, 7 Jul 2016 20:08:40 +0200
Quentin Glidic wrote:
> On 07/07/2016 18:11, Emil Velikov wrote:
> > On 7 July 2016 at 10:05, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> >>
> >> [snip]
> >>
> >> Now that you mentioned the semantics could be of upper or