On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 12:27 PM, Johannes Berg <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, 2013-04-10 at 12:19 -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > >> > However, it seems entirely pointless to backport just a small part of >> > the API? >> >> Oh I agree don't get me wrong, however porting kernel/async.c seems >> like a rather separate effort worth considering. As-is though I have >> not seen any negative impact though to keep older subsystems from >> compiling, ie its a no-op for older kernels as I see it. > > I guess that's what I don't understand -- I don't see usages of > ASYNC_DOMAIN_EXCLUSIVE in any header files, and in e.g. regulator/core.c > you'd also need the functions async_schedule_domain() etc. So where does > this help even compiling? You know what, sorry this was left over from when I tried to backport the regulatory to the core of compat, and since I decided to not even go there given that it relies on init sections on the vmlinux we can safely discard this patch (although what I said still hold, just not needed). Luis -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe backports" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
