On Wed, 03 Jul 2024 09:10:58 +0200 Nuno Sá <noname.nuno@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, 2024-07-02 at 21:26 +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > > On Tue, 02 Jul 2024 18:02:32 +0200 > > Nuno Sa via B4 Relay <devnull+nuno.sa.analog.com@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > Hi Jonathan, > > > > > > Here it goes the first round of what we discussed in [1] about > > > annotating .masklength as __private. Patches should be fairly simple so > > > hopefully I did not messed up much... > > > > > > Note that in core, there's one place where we're still directly writing > > > into .masklength (when it's effectively set). The plan is then to > > > directly use ACCESS_PRIVATE() in there in the same patch where we mark > > > .masklength as __private. > > > > Makes sense. Series looks good to me, but I'll not pick it up just yet. > > I've tagged a like second 6.11 pull request, so this is probably 6.12 material > > unless things go particularly smoothly and Greg takes an additional last > > minute one as there is one set waiting for a fix that is in char-misc > > but not yet iio-togreg. > > > > Jonathan > > > > Yeah, looks sane to me. Advantage of going in 6.12 is that (likely) we'' get all > the conversions done. Given I'm not planning to send another pull request (no time for suitable testing in linux-next etc) for 6.11 I've started queuing up as probable 6.12 material. Usual process applies at this stage - I won't be pushing out as togreg until I can rebase on rc1. Applied and pushed out as testing for now with the typo Alexandru pointed out in adxl372 fixed up. Jonathan > > - Nuno Sá > > >
