lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Jan]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/6] driver core: Fix some issues related to device links
On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 02:22:47PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 11:09:51AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 12:25 PM Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Greg at al,
> > >
> > > Recently I have been looking at the device links code because of the
> > > recent discussion on possibly using them in the DRM subsystem (see for
> > > example https://marc.info/?l=linux-pm&m=154832771905309&w=2) and I have
> > > found a few issues in that code which should be addressed by this patch
> > > series. Please refer to the patch changelogs for details.
> > >
> > > None of the problems addressed here should be manifesting themselves in
> > > mainline kernel today, but if there are more device links users in the
> > > future, they most likely will be encountered sooner or later. Also they
> > > need to be fixed for the DRM use case to be supported IMO.
> > >
> > > This series does not fix all issues in device links that have become
> > > apparent (generally speaking, the idea of returning an existing link
> > > in case there is one already for the given consumer-supplier pair
> > > doesn't play well with stateful links and their flags), so there will
> > > be a follow-up series of patches to clean that up. Still, I don't see
> > > a reason to sit on these fixes while working on the other patches, so
> > > here they go.
> >
> > Any concerns regarding this lot?
> >
> > [Please note that patch 5 in the series was replaced with the v2 at
> > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10781205/]
> >
> > If not, and if you don't mind, I would like to queue it up next week,
> > possibly along with the follow-up material posted on Monday
> > (https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/2405639.4es7pRLqn0@aspire.rjw.lan/) if
> > that is not problematic, so it gets some linux-next coverage before
> > the next merge window.
>
> Can I queue it up in my tree, given that I have a number of other driver
> core patches in there, and I don't know how the merge issues will be if
> we start to diverge.
>
> Or do you need this for some other work?

To make this clearer, I have no objection to take this through my tree
now, along with your second set of patches. Is that ok?

thanks,

greg k-h

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-01-31 14:24    [W:0.061 / U:0.296 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site