Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752989AbdF0MSL (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Jun 2017 08:18:11 -0400 Received: from server.atrad.com.au ([150.101.241.2]:60526 "EHLO server.atrad.com.au" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752335AbdF0MSE (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Jun 2017 08:18:04 -0400 Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2017 21:46:47 +0930 From: Jonathan Woithe To: Darren Hart Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Micha?? K??pie?? , Andy Shevchenko , platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] platform/x86: fujitsu-laptop: do not use kfifo for storing hotkey scancodes Message-ID: <20170627121647.GA28877@marvin.atrad.com.au> References: <20170616044058.30443-1-kernel@kempniu.pl> <20170616044058.30443-2-kernel@kempniu.pl> <20170621181543.GB25900@fury> <40512901.HXkrFCdsVg@aspire.rjw.lan> <20170627000718.GA11146@localhost.localdomain> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170627000718.GA11146@localhost.localdomain> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) X-MIMEDefang-action: accept Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 918 Lines: 25 On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 05:07:18PM -0700, Darren Hart wrote: > On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 02:25:46AM +0200, Rafael Wysocki wrote: > > > Rafael, the above rationale appears sound to me. Do you have any concerns? > > > > I actually do. > > > > While this is the case today, making the driver code depend on it in a hard way > > sort of makes it difficult to change in the future if need be. > > OK, if we aren't guaranteed for this to run on CPU 0 in the future, and > this will be annoying to debug if it does changes, let's skip the kfifo > change. > > I have removed this patch, and fixed up the merge conflicts of the > remaining 6 patches here: > > http://git.infradead.org/linux-platform-drivers-x86.git/shortlog/refs/heads/fujitsu > > Michal / Jonathan, would you please review and let me know if this is what > you would have done / approve the rebase? The rebase looks reasonable to me. Regards jonathan