On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 at 14:24, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gre...@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 <r...@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/2405639.4es7prl...@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? >
Greg, Rafael, FWIW, I intend to review these patches during tomorrow, or at latest on Monday as I have been a bit busy lately. Kind regards Uffe
