From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756538Ab2DTXnI (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Apr 2012 19:43:08 -0400 Received: from mail-pz0-f52.google.com ([209.85.210.52]:33098 "EHLO mail-pz0-f52.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752241Ab2DTXnG (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Apr 2012 19:43:06 -0400 Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 16:43:00 -0700 From: Greg KH To: John Stultz Cc: Linux Kernel , Colin Cross , Thomas Gleixner , Android Kernel Team Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] Android Alarm Driver Cleanups (for staging-next/3.5) Message-ID: <20120420234300.GB27780@kroah.com> References: <1334950307-403-1-git-send-email-john.stultz@linaro.org> <20120420220849.GA5642@kroah.com> <4F91E9C1.4050102@linaro.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4F91E9C1.4050102@linaro.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 03:57:05PM -0700, John Stultz wrote: > On 04/20/2012 03:08 PM, Greg KH wrote: > >On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 12:31:43PM -0700, John Stultz wrote: > >>Greg: Would you mind applying this set to staging-next for 3.5? > >It took some messing with (due to some over-eager people fixing spelling > >mistakes and compiler warnings that you didn't have in your tree), but > >I've applied these now. Thanks for doing this work. > > > >But, as I already said, this patch set produces some big compiler > >warnings, can you please fix them up before I get nasty messages from > >the linux-next maintainer? > Ok. So I manged to trigger the warning at patch 3/4 too. However, > patch 4/4 resolves it. Ah, I didn't notice that, you are right, nice. > The problem is the android alarm driver and the alarmtimer code have > a naming collision with "struct alarm", and there were some macros > (see CONFIG_ANDROID_ALARM_OLDDRV_COMPAT in > staging/android/android_alarm.h before these patches) that allow a > easier transition over to the new code for out of tree drivers. > > Ideally I would have yanked those macros in 3/4 instead of 4/4. But > after 4/4 is applied the issue should not longer be present (at > least I've not been able to trigger it) > > Do you want me to respin the last two patches? No, they are both applied now, so all is good, sorry for the noise. greg k-h