On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 03:29:01PM -0800, Greg KH wrote: > On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 03:58:46PM +0100, Loïc Pefferkorn wrote: > > > >>> Don't hide "implementation of locks" in functions like this, it only > > > >>> causes problems. This code has layers of layers of layers of > > > >>> abstractions due to it wanting to be originally ported to other > > > >>> operating systems and lots of different kernel versions of Linux itself. > > > >>> Unwinding and removing those layers is a good thing to do, don't paper > > > >>> over the nonsense by putting sparse markings on pointless functions. > > > >>> > > > >>> thanks, > > > >>> > > > >>> greg k-h > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Cheers, Andreas > > > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > > > Thanks for your answer. The annotations look like the best thing to do? > > > > > > Yes, the annotations still make sense. > > > > > > Cheers, Andreas > > > > Hello guys, > > > > I believe this patch is still relevant, and can be applied against next-20141212. > > If so, please resend, as I don't have it in my queue anymore. > > thanks, > > greg k-h > Hi Greg, Done: https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/1/20/841 -- Cheers, Loïc _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
