On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 12:50 AM, Ognjen Galić <smclt30p@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 12:40:13AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >> On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 12:55 PM, Andy Shevchenko >> <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > On Sat, 2018-01-13 at 12:53 +0100, Ognjen Galić wrote: >> >> > -#include <linux/kernel.h> >> >> > -#include <linux/module.h> >> >> > -#include <linux/types.h> >> >> > -#include <linux/jiffies.h> >> >> > #include <linux/async.h> >> >> > -#include <linux/dmi.h> >> >> > #include <linux/delay.h> >> >> > +#include <linux/dmi.h> >> >> > +#include <linux/jiffies.h> >> >> > +#include <linux/kernel.h> >> >> > +#include <linux/module.h> >> >> > #include <linux/slab.h> >> >> > #include <linux/suspend.h> >> >> > -#include <asm/unaligned.h> >> >> > +#include <linux/types.h> >> >> >> >> These changes completely break my patch: >> >> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10142157/ >> >> >> >> Can we please postpone this patch until I hear back from Rafael >> >> about my series, as my series does some of the things this patch >> >> series does (like defining pr_fmt to shorten log prints) and this >> >> is a much smaller changeset and would require small changes on >> >> conflicts compared to my series? >> > >> > Definitely on both series we need to hear from Rafael. >> >> Right, I still need to convince myself that the Ognjen's series >> actually works in all cases which I'm not quite sure about ATM. > > What edge cases are you concerned about? Initialization ordering, basically. It appears to work only under specific assumptions that are not guaranteed to be satisfied universally, but I need to walk though it again to check that. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
