From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 641E8C169C4 for ; Thu, 31 Jan 2019 23:52:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BB1F20B1F for ; Thu, 31 Jan 2019 23:52:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728307AbfAaXwI (ORCPT ); Thu, 31 Jan 2019 18:52:08 -0500 Received: from cloudserver094114.home.pl ([79.96.170.134]:51368 "EHLO cloudserver094114.home.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726132AbfAaXwI (ORCPT ); Thu, 31 Jan 2019 18:52:08 -0500 Received: from 79.184.255.169.ipv4.supernova.orange.pl (79.184.255.169) (HELO aspire.rjw.lan) by serwer1319399.home.pl (79.96.170.134) with SMTP (IdeaSmtpServer 0.83.183) id f98c47563f80014d; Fri, 1 Feb 2019 00:52:05 +0100 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" To: Greg Kroah-Hartman Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , LKML , Linux PM , Ulf Hansson , Daniel Vetter , Lukas Wunner , Andrzej Hajda , Russell King - ARM Linux , Lucas Stach , Linus Walleij , Thierry Reding , Laurent Pinchart Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] driver core: Fix some issues related to device links Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2019 00:50:58 +0100 Message-ID: <2779542.Q4bG6sN7hf@aspire.rjw.lan> In-Reply-To: <20190131182407.GA6191@kroah.com> References: <2493187.oiOpCWJBV7@aspire.rjw.lan> <20190131182407.GA6191@kroah.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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 > > 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 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