Hi Corey, Thanks for the rework, on an initial look it seems pretty good. I'll give it some testing on our machines here.
> One question on this, do you need this for 3.14? I'd rather wait for 3.15 > for something this invasive, but it can probably be worked in if critical. We do need *something* for 4.14, to address the might-sleep-while-atomic issue. And I'd agree that this does seem a little large a change for this stage in the merge cycle. A couple of options would be: - revert the initial dynamic device patches, and go back to no device ID on powernv. - use the spinlock patch as a temporary workaround, until 4.15 where this series replaces it. What were the issues around that change? Cheers, Jeremy ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ Openipmi-developer mailing list Openipmi-developer@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openipmi-developer
