Hey Bjorn,
so I have spent a few hours seeing how we could simplify this series.
Here are my thoughts.
On Fri, 2024-04-26 at 17:01 -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 26, 2024 at 10:07:02AM +0200, Philipp Stanner wrote:
> > On Wed, 2024-04-24 at 15:12 -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > > On
On Fri, Apr 26, 2024 at 10:07:02AM +0200, Philipp Stanner wrote:
> On Wed, 2024-04-24 at 15:12 -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 08, 2024 at 10:44:12AM +0200, Philipp Stanner wrote:
> > > ...
> > > PCI's devres API suffers several weaknesses:
> > >
> > > 1. There are functions prefixed
On Wed, 2024-04-24 at 15:12 -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 08, 2024 at 10:44:12AM +0200, Philipp Stanner wrote:
> > ...
> > PCI's devres API suffers several weaknesses:
> >
> > 1. There are functions prefixed with pcim_. Those are always
> > managed
> > counterparts to never-managed
On Mon, Apr 08, 2024 at 10:44:12AM +0200, Philipp Stanner wrote:
> ...
> PCI's devres API suffers several weaknesses:
>
> 1. There are functions prefixed with pcim_. Those are always managed
>counterparts to never-managed functions prefixed with pci_ – or so one
>would like to think.
Yo,
we know reached -rc5.
Is this fine for v6.10?
Regards,
P.
On Mon, 2024-04-08 at 10:44 +0200, Philipp Stanner wrote:
> Changes in v6:
> - Restructure the cleanup in pcim_iomap_regions_request_all() so
> that
> it doesn't trigger a (false positive) test robot warning. No
>
