On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 06:06:50AM -0700, Anton Vorontsov wrote: > In the light of Linus' response, and I said this to Colin already, I'll > just zap a prz at boot time for pstore/console interface, which means > that nowadays there shouldn't be any objections to this bunch of fixes. > > These are valid fixes for v3.5, they restore old pstore's behavior > nuances, which I changed accidentaly. > > Except for the last patch, which is just a fix I happened to make when > I got bored of the warning. :-) Not a regression fix, though. > > Thanks, > > --- > fs/pstore/inode.c | 2 +- > fs/pstore/ram.c | 3 +++ > fs/pstore/ram_core.c | 27 +++++++++++++++++---------- > include/linux/pstore_ram.h | 2 ++ > 4 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) Hi Greg, Have you had a chance to look into these? Plus into "[PATCH v5 0/11] Merge ram_console into pstore" series, I believe there were no objections as well. Thanks! p.s. I must confess I have a huge pile of battery-related patches in my inbox that I have to review/apply, and folks start to send similar pings as I send to you now. :-) I should probably start working on my backlog to improve my karma, hehe. -- Anton Vorontsov Email: cbouatmailru@xxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
