Displaying 3 results from an estimated 3 matches for "is_device_private".
2019 Jun 20
2
[PATCH 18/22] mm: mark DEVICE_PUBLIC as broken
On Thu 13-06-19 11:43:21, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> The code hasn't been used since it was added to the tree, and doesn't
> appear to actually be usable. Mark it as BROKEN until either a user
> comes along or we finally give up on it.
I would go even further and simply remove all the DEVICE_PUBLIC code.
> Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch at lst.de>
Anyway
2019 Jun 25
0
[PATCH 18/22] mm: mark DEVICE_PUBLIC as broken
...Mark it as BROKEN until either a user
> > comes along or we finally give up on it.
>
> I would go even further and simply remove all the DEVICE_PUBLIC code.
I looked into that as I now got the feedback twice. It would
create a conflict with another tree cleaning things up around the
is_device_private defintion, but otherwise I'd be glad to just remove
it.
Jason, as this goes through your tree, do you mind the additional
conflict?
2019 Jun 25
1
[PATCH 18/22] mm: mark DEVICE_PUBLIC as broken
...ser
> > > comes along or we finally give up on it.
> >
> > I would go even further and simply remove all the DEVICE_PUBLIC code.
>
> I looked into that as I now got the feedback twice. It would
> create a conflict with another tree cleaning things up around the
> is_device_private defintion, but otherwise I'd be glad to just remove
> it.
>
> Jason, as this goes through your tree, do you mind the additional
> conflict?
Which tree and what does the resolution look like?
Also, I don't want to be making the decision if we should keep/remove
DEVICE_PUBLIC,...