On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 12:57:01PM +0300, Imre Deak wrote: > On Wed, 2013-05-22 at 11:46 +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 9:48 AM, Jani Nikula > > <jani.nikula at linux.intel.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, 21 May 2013, Imre Deak <imre.deak at intel.com> wrote: > > >> We need this to avoid premature timeouts whenever scheduling a timeout > > >> based on the current jiffies value. For an explanation see [1]. > > >> The following patches will take the helper into use. > > >> > > >> Once the more generic solution proposed in the thread at [1] is accepted > > >> this patch can be reverted while keeping the follow-up patches. > > >> > > >> [1] http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=136854294730957&w=2 > > > > > > With the name clashes, what happens when the generic solution is merged? > > > Blows up the build? To avoid confusion with merging upstream and > > > potential stable backports, should we err on the safe side and rename > > > these? Or add suitable trickery to use the generic version when > > > available? > > > > linux-next should catch such fallout and we can fix up things in the > > merge. And since Linus has intel graphics I expect that he'll catch it > > if it fails to compile ;-) > > Yea, I haven't thought this through properly. But after discussing with > Jani, this seems to be doable. I only hope Linus won't have to resolve > anything :) Ok, I've picked up the entire pile for -fixes, thanks for the patches. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch
