On Mon, 2014-09-15 at 14:45 -0400, John W. Linville wrote: > FYI -- Sergey posted a series to linux-mips on 14 September 2014 that > touches the symbol in question. For whatever reason, it is posted > there as RFC. Thanks for passing that on. > Does this satisfy the interested parties?? In case I qualify as an interested party: resolving this by, in short, making AHB support actually buildable is of course the preferable solution. Whether or not we should drop my patch while waiting for that series to land in linux-next is not my call. But if it hasn't landed by, say, about the time v3.18-rc3 is released I might raise this issue again. I must say that I'm a bit puzzled why people have resisted this rather small cleanup for years. How did having unbuildable AHB support in mainline benefit anyone? Couldn't the revert of this cleanup also be handled out of tree? Note that the revert is only "6 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 294 deletions(-)", while the series is "39 files changed, 3911 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)". Paul Bolle -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
