Ramsay Jones <ramsay@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On 02/10/17 14:44, Pranit Bauva wrote: > [snip] >>... > Yes, I also meant to tidy that up by removing some, now > redundant, initialisation later in that function. > > Note, that wasn't the only bug! (I have probably forgotten > some of them, but look at 964f4e2b0, for example). It seems that Pranit needs a bit more work to take known fixes from your efforts and we should wait for the series to be rerolled? Thanks both for working on this.
