> Thanks. When I posted this last time around (19th Jan) I mentioned > about marking the old _indirect() accessors with __deprecated - is > that still something we want to do? > > I haven't tested this against net-next yet, so I don't know if there > are any new users of the indirect accessors - going down the deprecated > route would avoid breakage, but means having to submit a patch later to > actually remove them. > > How would people want this handled? Hi Russell We can get patches into net-next very quickly. So i suggest you rebase and resubmit and get it in. If something breaks, we add followup patches to fix it. Andrew -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
