On Sat, 9 Dec 2006, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> On 12/9/06, Robert P. J. Day <[email protected]> wrote:
> > no. those two submissions represent two logically different "fixes"
> > and i have no intention of combining them.
>
> Like I said, fixing the order of kcalloc parameters with a follow-up
> patch to use kzalloc is just plain stupid. You can ignore my review
> comments all you want, but don't expect that bit to be merged. So,
> for the record: NAK for that bit of the patch, it should be
> converted to kzalloc instead. Thanks.
all right. but it will be amusing if the resulting patch is rejected
because it combines two different fixes, won't it? :-)
rday
-
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]