[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20121025163348.GC2623@aftab.osrc.amd.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 18:33:48 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...64.org>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
"Naveen N. Rao" <naveen.n.rao@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] drivers/base: Add a DEVICE_BOOL_ATTR macro
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 09:07:41AM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 04:17:43PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
> >
> > ... which, analogous to DEVICE_INT_ATTR provides functionality to
> > set/clear bools. Its purpose is to be used where values need to be used
> > as booleans in configuration context.
> >
> > Next patch uses this.
> >
> > Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
>
> Acked-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
>
> Do you want me to take this through my tree now? If not, I have no
> objection to it being part of this larger series and go to Linus through
> whatever tree takes it.
Well, in my case it would go through the RAS tree.
And I, like you, don't care which way it goes except maybe that if those
5 patches stay together, there won't be any build issues due to merging
order in linux-next and later Linus' tree if that first patch goes
separately.
But I'm absolutely open to whatever you suggest is best.
Thanks.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
Advanced Micro Devices GmbH
Einsteinring 24, 85609 Dornach
GM: Alberto Bozzo
Reg: Dornach, Landkreis Muenchen
HRB Nr. 43632 WEEE Registernr: 129 19551
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists