[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120116143759.4c498831@sf.home>
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 14:37:59 +0300
From: Sergei Trofimovich <slyich@...il.com>
To: "Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@...y.org>,
Linux PM mailing list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
"mingo@...e.hu" <mingo@...e.hu>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...64.org>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
prasad@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Subject: Re: 3.2.0-07927-gc49c41a: s2ram: Device 'machinecheck1' does not
have a release() function, it is broken and must be fixed
> But the only reason I haven't really jumped into writing such a patch
> is that I would prefer to get the semantics right - adding a dummy
> function is IMO something like working around the rules of the driver-core
> framework just to silence the warning. Hence I feel we should resort
> to it _only_ if there is nothing better we can do about this.
Ah, I see. Will ignore the warning.
Thanks for the detailed explanation!
Sorry for the noise.
--
Sergei
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (199 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists