On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 11:44:22AM +0000, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote: > > > On 30/10/17 11:38, Johan Hovold wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 11:35:50AM +0000, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote: > >> On 30/10/17 11:32, Johan Hovold wrote: > >>> The right thing to do here is to respin your patch from last year which > >>> converts the loopback driver to use the timeout handling in greybus > >>> core. > >> > >> Actually I wasn't clear if you wanted to to that yourself aswell as the > >> rest if it. > >> > >> But sure I can do that conversion, it's on my list. > > > > IIRC it was basically done. Just some odd locking that could now also be > > removed. > > > > Thanks, > > Johan > > > > I think once Kees' change is applied to operation.c and we convert the > async stuff to operation.c's callbacks there ought to be no use of > timers, linked lists of operations. That's correct. > I'll probably need at least a day to look at that, so it'll be the > weekend before I can really allocate time. Cool. I'm quite sure I just rebased your loopback conversion patch on my core timeout handling and used that to test the core implementation, so it should be straight forward. Thanks, Johan _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
