Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753076Ab3CJRu6 (ORCPT ); Sun, 10 Mar 2013 13:50:58 -0400 Received: from mail-wg0-f42.google.com ([74.125.82.42]:57060 "EHLO mail-wg0-f42.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751619Ab3CJRu5 (ORCPT ); Sun, 10 Mar 2013 13:50:57 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20130310172430.GA4723@kroah.com> References: <1362194662-2344-1-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org> <1362194662-2344-31-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org> <20130302181727.GB2051@kroah.com> <20130305204327.GK12795@htj.dyndns.org> <20130307233116.GF10304@kroah.com> <20130310115702.GB24522@htj.dyndns.org> <20130310164530.GA4523@kroah.com> <20130310172430.GA4723@kroah.com> From: Kay Sievers Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2013 18:50:34 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 30/31] driver/base: implement subsys_virtual_register() To: Greg Kroah-Hartman Cc: Tejun Heo , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, laijs@cn.fujitsu.com, axboe@kernel.dk, jmoyer@redhat.com, zab@redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1755 Lines: 41 On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 6:24 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 06:00:18PM +0100, Kay Sievers wrote: >> On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 5:45 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman >> wrote: >> > On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 04:57:02AM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote: >> >> Hey, guys. >> >> >> >> On Fri, Mar 08, 2013 at 01:04:25AM +0100, Kay Sievers wrote: >> >> > > Sorry for the delay, I'm at a conference all this week, and haven't had >> >> > > much time to think about this. >> >> > > >> >> > > If Kay says this is ok for now, that's good enough for me. >> >> > >> >> > Yes, it looks fine to me. If we provide the unified handling of >> >> > classes and buses some day, this can probably go away, but until that >> >> > it looks fine and is straight forward to do it that way, >> >> >> >> How should this be routed? I can take it but Kay needs it too so >> >> workqueue tree probably isn't the best fit although I can set up a >> >> separate branch if needed. >> > >> > What patch set does Kay need it for? I have no objection for you to >> > take it through the workqueue tree: >> >> The dbus bus has the same issues and needs the devices put under >> virtual/ and not the devices/ root. > > Yes, but I can keep Tejun's patch in my local queue for now, dbus is > going to not make 3.10, right? No, sure not. It's just something we will need there too, but there is no hurry, it's only a cosmetic issue anyway and nothing that matters functionality-wise. Kay -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/