On Tue, 2007-01-30 at 14:12 -0800, David Miller wrote:
> > > Therefore we must decrement "i" twice before the first
> > > free during the cleanup. One to "undo" the for() loop
> > > increment, and one to "skip" the ifb_init_one() case which
> > > failed.
Perhaps putting the error unwind inside th
From: Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 14:13:14 -0800 (PST)
> On Tue, 30 Jan 2007, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> >
> > I'm about to crash, can you or Linus handle the correction?
>
> Reverted, pushed out.
>
> Davem, if you have any other issues, just push me any fixes. I'm going
On Tue, 30 Jan 2007, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>
> I'm about to crash, can you or Linus handle the correction?
Reverted, pushed out.
Davem, if you have any other issues, just push me any fixes. I'm going to
do a final -rc7 today (way too many changes for me to be happy releasing a
2.6.20 without a
From: Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 16:52:27 -0500
> David Miller wrote:
> > Jeff, please revert: 0c0b3ae68ec93b1db5c637d294647d1cca0df763
> >
> > It's wrong. We had a lengthy analysis of this piece of code
> > several months ago, and it is correct.
> >
> > Consider, if
David Miller wrote:
Jeff, please revert: 0c0b3ae68ec93b1db5c637d294647d1cca0df763
It's wrong. We had a lengthy analysis of this piece of code
several months ago, and it is correct.
Consider, if we run the loop and we get an error
the following happens:
1) attempt of ifb_init_one(i) fails, the
Jeff, please revert: 0c0b3ae68ec93b1db5c637d294647d1cca0df763
It's wrong. We had a lengthy analysis of this piece of code
several months ago, and it is correct.
Consider, if we run the loop and we get an error
the following happens:
1) attempt of ifb_init_one(i) fails, therefore we should
n
