On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 07:16:52AM -0500, Tejun Heo wrote: > On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 12:11:38AM +0100, Russell King wrote: > > The correct way for a driver to specify the coherent DMA mask is > > not to directly access the field in the struct device, but to use > > dma_set_coherent_mask(). Only arch and bus code should access this > > member directly. > > > > Convert all direct write accesses to using the correct API. > > > > Signed-off-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Acked-by: Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> > > The patch is pretty widely spread. I don't mind how it gets routed > but what's the plan? The plan is... I'm going to try and avoid going through the hell of re-posting this patch series to all the recipients another time... (It's taken some 17 hours and lots of hand holding to get this patch set out without exim jumping off a cliff into deep OOM - soo deep that even the OOM killer doesn't run and the CPU is 100% idle because every single process stuck in an uninterruptible sleep waiting for every other process to free some memory - ouch!) I know that dealing with this patch set will be a problem due to how widespread this is, but much of the driver level changes come down to depending on a couple of patches. One solution would be if I published a branch with just the dependencies in, which subsystem maintainers could pull, and then apply the appropriate patches on top. Another would be if subsystem maintainers are happy that I carry them, I can add the acks, and then later on towards the end of the cycle, provide a branch subsystem maintainers could pull. Or... if you can think of something easier... -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-crypto" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
