From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-path: <backports-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mail-la0-f44.google.com ([209.85.215.44]:40949 "EHLO
	mail-la0-f44.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S934226Ab3DJTlM (ORCPT
	<rfc822;backports@vger.kernel.org>); Wed, 10 Apr 2013 15:41:12 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1365622791.4235.38.camel@jlt4.sipsolutions.net>
References: <1365593728-5720-1-git-send-email-mcgrof@do-not-panic.com>
 <1365593728-5720-7-git-send-email-mcgrof@do-not-panic.com>
 <1365600139.4235.4.camel@jlt4.sipsolutions.net> <CAB=NE6UpP-X1NCTNRnoSdv_bk3ioZdg5bO1zz0U0dqeWVxZdLw@mail.gmail.com>
 <1365614413.4235.29.camel@jlt4.sipsolutions.net> <CAB=NE6VAfAvjRs0uZ=jpMjfP5Dz-zEHu3N7t8AUAofZAggrEEQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <1365618018.4235.35.camel@jlt4.sipsolutions.net> <CAB=NE6VKT11k95Szi4NmigKCgMJ1XJoU3+rACbJpnWwUpCC1EA@mail.gmail.com>
 <1365622074.4235.37.camel@jlt4.sipsolutions.net> <CAB=NE6W8wZbwGiCCq2n2LObNreWhxd-uFU7CrX5yJw2Uik9hAg@mail.gmail.com>
 <1365622791.4235.38.camel@jlt4.sipsolutions.net>
From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@do-not-panic.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 12:40:50 -0700
Message-ID: <CAB=NE6VzjradFaesB7pTFYC8E=fXOWfs7X6nxBpnKAqGCTHNpg@mail.gmail.com> (sfid-20130410_214118_048445_2A700C59)
Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/18] compat: backport ASYNC_DOMAIN_EXCLUSIVE()
To: Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
Cc: "backports@vger.kernel.org" <backports@vger.kernel.org>,
	Dan Williams <dcbw@redhat.com>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Sender: backports-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <backports@vger.kernel.org>

On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 12:39 PM, Johannes Berg
<johannes@sipsolutions.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-04-10 at 12:32 -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>
>> >> Oh I agree don't get me wrong, however porting kernel/async.c seems
>> >> like a rather separate effort worth considering. As-is though I have
>> >> not seen any negative impact though to keep older subsystems from
>> >> compiling, ie its a no-op for older kernels as I see it.
>> >
>> > I guess that's what I don't understand -- I don't see usages of
>> > ASYNC_DOMAIN_EXCLUSIVE in any header files, and in e.g. regulator/core.c
>> > you'd also need the functions async_schedule_domain() etc. So where does
>> > this help even compiling?
>>
>> You know what, sorry this was left over from when I tried to backport
>> the regulatory to the core of compat, and since I decided to not even
>> go there given that it relies on init sections on the vmlinux we can
>> safely discard this patch (although what I said still hold, just not
>> needed).
>
> Ok. Yeah after looking at the users I actually do agree this won't
> really hurt, but it seemed it doesn't help anything at all hence my
> confusion... :)

Yea its fine to drop for now.

  Luis