[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87mv4pvowa.fsf@purkki.adurom.net>
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2017 17:18:29 +0300
From: Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/58] networking: Convert timers to use timer_setup()
+ linux-wireless
Hi Kees,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> writes:
> This is the current set of outstanding networking patches to perform
> conversions to the new timer interface (rebased to -next). This is not
> all expected conversions, but it contains everything needed in networking
> to eliminate init_timer(), and all the non-standard setup_*_timer() uses.
So this also includes patches which I had queued for
wireless-drivers-next:
https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9986253/
https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9986245/
And looking at patchwork[1] I have even more timer_setup() related
patches from you. It would be really helpful if you could clearly
document to which tree you want the patches to be applied. I don't care
if it's net-next or wireless-drivers-next as long as it's not the both
(meaning that both Dave and me apply the same patch, which would be
bad). The thing is that I really do not have time to figure out for
every patch via which tree it's supposed to go.
For now I'll just drop all your timer_setup() related patches from my
queue and I'll assume Dave will take those. Ok?
[1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/list/
--
Kalle Valo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists