On Wed, 2014-03-12 at 11:37 +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 02:55:41PM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > > > How do you suggest we proceed ? I can't add a fix to powerpc-next to use > > the new function since it doesn't exist upstream yet. I would have to > > pull drivers-core-next in which I really don't want to do.... > > > Can the removal of the function be delayed to -rc1 so we can properly > > do the fixup ? Or do you have the introduction of the new function in > > a topic branch I can pull in without the rest of drivers-core-next ? > > The delay would have been my first suggestion - otherwise I'd not be > surprised to see this coming up again. Perhaps change to tagging the > APIs as deprecated for now (so any futher new users get flagged up) > would help. Either that or I can put a copy of the patch that introduces the new function in my tree as long as it's a single patch. The resulting conflict should resolve trivially and Linus should be fine if appropriate explanations are provided (though I would have preferred pulling in a topic branch). Greg, how do you want to proceed ? Cheers, Ben. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
