RE: [PATCH 1/1] aacraid: don't assign cpu_to_le32(int) to u8

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: Salyzyn, Mark
Date: Thursday, November 8, 2007 - 11:09 am

Resounding ACK.

I just finished *exactly* the same set of changes, composed the patch
and was about to hit send when this one came over the wire from you!
There was absolutely no differences between our patches (save for the
fact I did not place the AIF ones in as they are already in the queue,
one is already on -mm).

I am going to return to this at some future date and figure out the
problems surrounding the context imbalances that are present, making
code that determines which context it is called from (sysfs, error
recovery or from the background thread) and plays with the various locks
confuses sparse. Rewriting so that the contexts are less programmatic is
in order...

Sincerely -- Mark Salyzyn

-
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
[PATCH] aacraid: don't assign cpu_to_le32(constant) to u8, Stephen Rothwell, (Tue Oct 30, 9:02 pm)
[PATCHv2] aacraid: don't assign cpu_to_le32(constant) to u8, Stephen Rothwell, (Wed Oct 31, 11:32 pm)
Re: [PATCH 1/1] aacraid: don't assign cpu_to_le32(int) to u8, Christoph Hellwig, (Wed Nov 7, 10:33 am)
Re: [PATCH 1/1] aacraid: don't assign cpu_to_le32(int) to u8, Christoph Hellwig, (Thu Nov 8, 10:27 am)
RE: [PATCH 1/1] aacraid: don't assign cpu_to_le32(int) to u8, Salyzyn, Mark, (Thu Nov 8, 11:09 am)