[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87efkoazow.fsf@kamboji.qca.qualcomm.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2018 15:10:39 +0200
From: Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>
To: Arend van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@...adcom.com>
Cc: Marcel Holtmann <marcel@...tmann.org>,
linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, linux-bluetooth@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [2/3] mwifiex: support sysfs initiated device coredump
Arend van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@...adcom.com> writes:
> On 3/12/2018 10:41 AM, Kalle Valo wrote:
>> Arend Van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@...adcom.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Since commit 3c47d19ff4dc ("drivers: base: add coredump driver ops")
>>> it is possible to initiate a device coredump from user-space. This
>>> patch adds support for it adding the .coredump() driver callback.
>>> As there is no longer a need to initiate it through debugfs remove
>>> that code.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Arend van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@...adcom.com>
>>
>> Based on the discussion I assume this is ok to take to w-d-next. If that's not
>> the case, please let me know ASAP.
>
> It is up to the mwifiex maintainers to decide, I guess. The ABI
> documentation need to be revised and change the callback to void
> return type. I am not sure what the best approach is. 1) apply this
> and fix return type later, or 2) fix return type and resubmit this.
> What is your opinion?
I guess the callback change will go through Greg's tree? Then I suspect
it's easier that you submit the callback change to Greg first and wait
for it to trickle down to wireless-drivers-next (after the next merge
window) and then I can apply the driver patches. Otherwise there might
be a conflict between my and Greg's tree.
--
Kalle Valo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists