linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V2 4/4] ACPI,PCI,IRQ: correct operator precedence

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0i67f+zsg_Ui693C3szFskOE3vQ1JsKYZpUkvc=vzXqcQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 29 Jun 2016 23:40:35 +0200
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To:	Sinan Kaya <okaya@...eaurora.org>
Cc:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
	ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
	Timur Tabi <timur@...eaurora.org>,
	Christopher Covington <cov@...eaurora.org>,
	Jon Masters <jcm@...hat.com>,
	Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
	eric.auger@...hat.com, Linux PCI <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andy Gross <agross@...eaurora.org>,
	linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, wim@....tudelft.nl,
	perex@...ex.cz, tiwai@...e.com,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
	Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 4/4] ACPI,PCI,IRQ: correct operator precedence

On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 11:19 PM, Sinan Kaya <okaya@...eaurora.org> wrote:
> On 6/29/2016 5:14 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 8:29 PM, Sinan Kaya <okaya@...eaurora.org> wrote:
>>> On 6/29/2016 9:16 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Sinan Kaya <okaya@...eaurora.org>
>>>> Well, this is a rather obvious one, so I'm wondering why it is the
>>>> last one in the series?
>>>>
>>>
>>> The first three are more relevant to each other. It makes easy to
>>> correlate the changes.
>>
>> But this one doesn't seem to depend on them and it could be applied
>> without them, right?
>>
>
> Sure. It has no dependency.

OK

I've queued up this one.

Thanks,
Rafael