From: DaMouse <damouse@gmail.com>
To: "blaisorblade_spam@yahoo.it" <blaisorblade_spam@yahoo.it>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 1/1] uml: fix mainline lazyness about TTY layer patch
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 21:26:46 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1a56ea39041028132610a1579e@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20041028200635.3366D7436@localhost>
On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 22:04:51 +0200, blaisorblade_spam@yahoo.it
<blaisorblade_spam@yahoo.it> wrote:
>
> While changing the TTY layer, an API parameter was removed, so it was removed
> by almost all calls, changing their prototype. But one use of one such
> function was not updated, breaking UML compilation. This is the fix.
>
> Should go in directly - trivial fix.
>
> Thanks for the breakage, too :-).
>
> Signed-off-by: Paolo 'Blaisorblade' Giarrusso <blaisorblade_spam@yahoo.it>
> ---
>
> vanilla-linux-2.6.9-paolo/arch/um/drivers/line.c | 2 --
> vanilla-linux-2.6.9-paolo/arch/um/drivers/ssl.c | 2 +-
> 2 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff -puN arch/um/drivers/ssl.c~uml-mainline-is-lazy-fix arch/um/drivers/ssl.c
> --- vanilla-linux-2.6.9/arch/um/drivers/ssl.c~uml-mainline-is-lazy-fix 2004-10-27 01:47:58.000000000 +0200
> +++ vanilla-linux-2.6.9-paolo/arch/um/drivers/ssl.c 2004-10-27 01:48:07.000000000 +0200
> @@ -119,7 +119,7 @@ static int ssl_write(struct tty_struct *
>
> static void ssl_put_char(struct tty_struct *tty, unsigned char ch)
> {
> - line_write(serial_lines, tty, 0, &ch, sizeof(ch));
> + line_write(serial_lines, tty, &ch, sizeof(ch));
> }
>
> static void ssl_flush_chars(struct tty_struct *tty)
> diff -puN arch/um/drivers/line.c~uml-mainline-is-lazy-fix arch/um/drivers/line.c
> --- vanilla-linux-2.6.9/arch/um/drivers/line.c~uml-mainline-is-lazy-fix 2004-10-27 01:49:16.000000000 +0200
> +++ vanilla-linux-2.6.9-paolo/arch/um/drivers/line.c 2004-10-27 01:49:47.000000000 +0200
> @@ -110,7 +110,6 @@ static int flush_buffer(struct line *lin
> int line_write(struct line *lines, struct tty_struct *tty, const char *buf, int len)
> {
> struct line *line;
> - char *new;
> unsigned long flags;
> int n, err, i, ret = 0;
>
> @@ -143,7 +142,6 @@ int line_write(struct line *lines, struc
> }
> out_up:
> up(&line->sem);
> - out_free:
> return(ret);
> }
>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=lazyness
NOW who's lazy :P
-DaMouse
--
I know I broke SOMETHING but its their fault for not fixing it before me
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-10-28 20:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-10-28 20:04 [patch 1/1] uml: fix mainline lazyness about TTY layer patch blaisorblade_spam
2004-10-28 20:26 ` DaMouse [this message]
2004-10-28 23:36 ` Blaisorblade
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2004-10-28 20:19 blaisorblade_spam
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1a56ea39041028132610a1579e@mail.gmail.com \
--to=damouse@gmail.com \
--cc=blaisorblade_spam@yahoo.it \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox