linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 30/31] driver/base: implement subsys_virtual

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAPXgP13Vjp_H-_Xvm0O4D0=k02H7bb=dEmx43w8N+EZisxeZ8g@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Sun, 10 Mar 2013 18:50:34 +0100
From:	Kay Sievers <kay@...y.org>
To:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	laijs@...fujitsu.com, axboe@...nel.dk, jmoyer@...hat.com,
	zab@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 30/31] driver/base: implement subsys_virtual_register()

On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 6:24 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
<gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> 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
>> <gregkh@...uxfoundation.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?

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@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/