lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Jan]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/6] driver core: Fix some issues related to device links
Date
On Thursday, January 31, 2019 7:24:07 PM CET Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 05:02:05PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 2:24 PM Greg Kroah-Hartman
> > <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > 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?
> >
> > Yes, it is, AFAICS. Thank you!
> >
> > Do you need me to resend all of this as one series?
>
> Yes, can you please do that. Also, can you rebase it against my
> driver-core-next branch as right now, patch 1/6 has conflicts due to
> other patches that are in my tree :(

So commit 0fe6f7874d467 in your driver-core-next branch, which is the source
of this conflict and I can't recall seeing that patch, if missing a Fixes: tag.

Cheers,
Rafael

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-02-01 00:52    [W:0.064 / U:2.996 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site