On Wed, 2013-04-10 at 12:32 -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > >> 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). Ok. Yeah after looking at the users I actually do agree this won't really hurt, but it seemed it doesn't help anything at all hence my confusion... :) johannes -- 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
