> Thanks. When I posted this last time around (19th Jan) I mentioned
> about marking the old _indirect() accessors with __deprecated - is
> that still something we want to do?
>
> I haven't tested this against net-next yet, so I don't know if there
> are any new users of the indirect accessors - going down the deprecated
> route would avoid breakage, but means having to submit a patch later to
> actually remove them.
>
> How would people want this handled?
Hi Russell
We can get patches into net-next very quickly. So i suggest you rebase
and resubmit and get it in. If something breaks, we add followup
patches to fix it.
Andrew
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
