On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 18:06:14 +0100 Haavard Skinnemoen <[email protected]> wrote: > From: Remy Bohmer <[email protected]> Heh. That's obviously wrong. Wonder what happened there? Looks like Chip's address got mangled too. Haavard -- 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/
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PATCH 4/5] atmel_serial: Split the interrupt handler
- From: Chip Coldwell <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 4/5] atmel_serial: Split the interrupt handler
- References:
- [PATCH 0/5] atmel_serial: Cleanups, irq handler splitup & DMA
- From: Haavard Skinnemoen <[email protected]>
- [PATCH 1/5] atmel_serial: Clean up the code
- From: Haavard Skinnemoen <[email protected]>
- [PATCH 2/5] atmel_serial: Use cpu_relax() when busy-waiting
- From: Haavard Skinnemoen <[email protected]>
- [PATCH 3/5] atmel_serial: Use existing console options only if BRG is running
- From: Haavard Skinnemoen <[email protected]>
- [PATCH 4/5] atmel_serial: Split the interrupt handler
- From: Haavard Skinnemoen <[email protected]>
- [PATCH 0/5] atmel_serial: Cleanups, irq handler splitup & DMA
- Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH] Option to disable AMD C1E (allows dynticks to work)
- Next by Date: Lockdep warning with netlink
- Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH 5/5] atmel_serial: Add DMA support
- Next by thread: Re: [PATCH 4/5] atmel_serial: Split the interrupt handler
- Index(es):
 |