Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 10 Mar 2013 10:24:30 -0700 | From | Greg Kroah-Hartman <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 30/31] driver/base: implement subsys_virtual_register() |
| |
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 > <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> 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?
thanks,
greg k-h
| |