On 29/11/15 17:27, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On 18/11/15 07:33, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 17 November 2015 23:47:16 GMT+00:00, Andrew Morton
>> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 15 Nov 2015 10:39:08 + Jonathan Cameron
>>> wrote:
>>>
On 11/11/15 06:43, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
>
>
On 29/11/15 17:27, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On 18/11/15 07:33, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 17 November 2015 23:47:16 GMT+00:00, Andrew Morton
>> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 15 Nov 2015 10:39:08 + Jonathan Cameron
>>> wrote:
>>>
On 11/11/15
On 18/11/15 07:33, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
>
>
> On 17 November 2015 23:47:16 GMT+00:00, Andrew Morton
> wrote:
>> On Sun, 15 Nov 2015 10:39:08 + Jonathan Cameron
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/11/15 06:43, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
On 10 November 2015 21:12:37 GMT+00:00, Andrew
On 18/11/15 07:33, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
>
>
> On 17 November 2015 23:47:16 GMT+00:00, Andrew Morton
> wrote:
>> On Sun, 15 Nov 2015 10:39:08 + Jonathan Cameron
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/11/15 06:43, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
On 10
On 17 November 2015 23:47:16 GMT+00:00, Andrew Morton
wrote:
>On Sun, 15 Nov 2015 10:39:08 + Jonathan Cameron
>wrote:
>
>> On 11/11/15 06:43, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On 10 November 2015 21:12:37 GMT+00:00, Andrew Morton
> wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 07:51:26 +0100
On Sun, 15 Nov 2015 10:39:08 + Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On 11/11/15 06:43, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 10 November 2015 21:12:37 GMT+00:00, Andrew Morton
> > wrote:
> >> On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 07:51:26 +0100 Christoph Hellwig
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> is this simple addition
On Sun, 15 Nov 2015 10:39:08 + Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On 11/11/15 06:43, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 10 November 2015 21:12:37 GMT+00:00, Andrew Morton
> > wrote:
> >> On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 07:51:26 +0100 Christoph Hellwig
On 17 November 2015 23:47:16 GMT+00:00, Andrew Morton
wrote:
>On Sun, 15 Nov 2015 10:39:08 + Jonathan Cameron
>wrote:
>
>> On 11/11/15 06:43, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On 10 November 2015 21:12:37 GMT+00:00, Andrew Morton
On 11/11/15 06:43, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
>
>
> On 10 November 2015 21:12:37 GMT+00:00, Andrew Morton
> wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 07:51:26 +0100 Christoph Hellwig
>> wrote:
>>
>>> is this simple addition something you could still send on to Linus
>>> for this merge window? I would make
On 11/11/15 06:43, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
>
>
> On 10 November 2015 21:12:37 GMT+00:00, Andrew Morton
> wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 07:51:26 +0100 Christoph Hellwig
>> wrote:
>>
>>> is this simple addition something you could still send on to Linus
On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 01:12:37PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 07:51:26 +0100 Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>
> > is this simple addition something you could still send on to Linus
> > for this merge window? I would make my life easier to have it in
> > so I could start using
On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 01:12:37PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 07:51:26 +0100 Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>
> > is this simple addition something you could still send on to Linus
> > for this merge window? I would make my life easier to have it in
> > so I could
On 10 November 2015 21:12:37 GMT+00:00, Andrew Morton
wrote:
>On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 07:51:26 +0100 Christoph Hellwig
>wrote:
>
>> is this simple addition something you could still send on to Linus
>> for this merge window? I would make my life easier to have it in
>> so I could start using it
On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 07:51:26 +0100 Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> is this simple addition something you could still send on to Linus
> for this merge window? I would make my life easier to have it in
> so I could start using it in patches for various trees in the next
> merge window.
It's super
On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 07:51:26 +0100 Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> is this simple addition something you could still send on to Linus
> for this merge window? I would make my life easier to have it in
> so I could start using it in patches for various trees in the next
> merge window.
On 10 November 2015 21:12:37 GMT+00:00, Andrew Morton
wrote:
>On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 07:51:26 +0100 Christoph Hellwig
>wrote:
>
>> is this simple addition something you could still send on to Linus
>> for this merge window? I would make my life easier to
Andrew,
is this simple addition something you could still send on to Linus
for this merge window? I would make my life easier to have it in
so I could start using it in patches for various trees in the next
merge window.
Thanks,
Christoph
On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 06:33:27PM +0300,
Andrew,
is this simple addition something you could still send on to Linus
for this merge window? I would make my life easier to have it in
so I could start using it in patches for various trees in the next
merge window.
Thanks,
Christoph
On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 06:33:27PM +0300,
On 07/11/15 13:09, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 05:38:53PM +, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
>> Yup. I'd have no objection to a direct request to Linus to take this as a
>> one off.
>
> I'd appreciate if you could give it a try.
Unfortunately this would fall out of scope for
On 07/11/15 13:09, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 05:38:53PM +, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
>> Yup. I'd have no objection to a direct request to Linus to take this as a
>> one off.
>
> I'd appreciate if you could give it a try.
Unfortunately this would fall out of scope for
On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 05:38:53PM +, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> Yup. I'd have no objection to a direct request to Linus to take this as a one
> off.
I'd appreciate if you could give it a try.
> Or we can do an immutable branch and pull it into all relevant subtrees so all
> users can hit
On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 05:38:53PM +, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> Yup. I'd have no objection to a direct request to Linus to take this as a one
> off.
I'd appreciate if you could give it a try.
> Or we can do an immutable branch and pull it into all relevant subtrees so all
> users can hit
On 11/06/2015 09:48 AM, Daniel Baluta wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 9:50 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>> Is this going into 4.4 through the iio tree? If not is there any chance
>> to get it in through some other tree? While we're not past the merge
>> window is trivial new functionality that
On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 9:50 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Is this going into 4.4 through the iio tree? If not is there any chance
> to get it in through some other tree? While we're not past the merge
> window is trivial new functionality that doesn't change code, and I'd like to
> move
On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 9:50 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Is this going into 4.4 through the iio tree? If not is there any chance
> to get it in through some other tree? While we're not past the merge
> window is trivial new functionality that doesn't change code, and I'd like to
On 11/06/2015 09:48 AM, Daniel Baluta wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 9:50 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>> Is this going into 4.4 through the iio tree? If not is there any chance
>> to get it in through some other tree? While we're not past the merge
>> window is trivial new
Is this going into 4.4 through the iio tree? If not is there any chance
to get it in through some other tree? While we're not past the merge
window is trivial new functionality that doesn't change code, and I'd like to
move existing configfs users over to it ASAP, so getting it into a baseline
Is this going into 4.4 through the iio tree? If not is there any chance
to get it in through some other tree? While we're not past the merge
window is trivial new functionality that doesn't change code, and I'd like to
move existing configfs users over to it ASAP, so getting it into a baseline
We don't want to hardcode default groups at subsystem
creation time. We export:
* configfs_register_group
* configfs_unregister_group
to allow drivers to programatically create/destroy groups
later, after module init time.
This is needed for IIO configfs support.
Suggested-by:
We don't want to hardcode default groups at subsystem
creation time. We export:
* configfs_register_group
* configfs_unregister_group
to allow drivers to programatically create/destroy groups
later, after module init time.
This is needed for IIO configfs support.
Suggested-by:
30 matches
Mail list logo