On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 12:39 PM, Johannes Berg <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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... :) Yea its fine to drop for now. 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
