[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YV8SJxgXmyQhhAsg@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2021 18:28:39 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
kunit-dev@...glegroups.com, linux-media@...r.kernel.org,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com>,
Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>,
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/7] kernel.h: Split out container_of() and
typeof_member() macros
On Thu, Oct 07, 2021 at 05:09:09PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 07, 2021 at 06:03:34PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
...
> Why did you touch kobject.h here?
Because it uses it, but indirectly. Now we may include it directly.
> It shouldn't have been needed to change for this commit.
OK. I will split it to a separate change. Would it be okay?
> Anyway, I really don't think this is all worth any more work at all,
> as
> I'm not going to be the one taking it...
It's fine. There are more people in favour of this change anyway.
Thanks for review!
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists