On 01/07/2016 01:18 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
> No. "Reviewed-by" means I just code reviewed it.
Yeah, that is clear :-).
> it will be picked up by a subtree maintainer (either the
> -trivial subtree or the linux-user one). That person will then
> at some point send me a pull request for their sub
On 7 January 2016 at 12:14, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
wrote:
> Hi Peter!
>
> On 01/07/2016 12:52 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> Reviewed-by: Peter Maydell
>
> Has this been committed yet? I can't see the change in cgit.
No. "Reviewed-by" means I just code reviewed it. At some point
it will be picke
Hi Peter!
On 01/07/2016 12:52 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
> Reviewed-by: Peter Maydell
Has this been committed yet? I can't see the change in cgit.
Cheers,
Adrian
--
.''`. John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
: :' : Debian Developer - glaub...@debian.org
`. `' Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaub...@phys
On 29 December 2015 at 09:51, Michael Tokarev wrote:
> There is no reason to limit sigaltstack syscall to just a few
> architectures and pretend it is not implemented for others.
>
> If some architecture is not ready for this, that architecture
> should be fixed instead.
>
> This fixes LP#1516408.
There is no reason to limit sigaltstack syscall to just a few
architectures and pretend it is not implemented for others.
If some architecture is not ready for this, that architecture
should be fixed instead.
This fixes LP#1516408.
Signed-off-by: Michael Tokarev
---
This patch depends on a prev