On Tue, 14 Feb 2006, Alan Cox wrote:
>
> Harmless but yes I'll send a diff to clean them up once the other three
> are applied.
Not harmless. The other patches seem to assume that the first one was
_not_ done. IOW, patch #2 contains:
-
-#define HOST_DISABLE \
- HostP->Flags &= ~RUN_STATE; \
- HostP->Flags |= RC_STUFFED; \
- RIOHostReset( HostP->Type, (struct DpRam *)HostP->CardP, HostP->Slot );\
- continue
-
- HOST_DISABLE;
and will thus obviously not apply at all if patch #1 was applied.
It looks like the indent was done _after_ patch #1 was applied, but then
the result was diffed against the state _before_ patch #1 was applied.
So I'll flush the series, hoping for a corrected one that actually applies
in order..
Linus
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
