From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1751082Ab0EFGYQ (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Thu, 6 May 2010 02:24:16 -0400
Received: from cantor.suse.de ([195.135.220.2]:46947 "EHLO mx1.suse.de"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1752693Ab0EFGYN (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 6 May 2010 02:24:13 -0400
Date: Thu, 06 May 2010 08:24:10 +0200
Message-ID: <s5h39y5v985.wl%tiwai@suse.de>
From: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de>
To: dedekind1@gmail.com
Cc: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>,
       Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Sitsofe Wheeler <sitsofe@yahoo.com>,
       Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
       Christof Schmitt <christof.schmitt@de.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PULL] param sysfs oops (simple, leaky) fix, bool arrays fix
In-Reply-To: <1273050258.3702.133.camel@localhost>
References: <200910290902.13724.rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
	<201005041154.24658.rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
	<1272996439.2458.0.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<201005051503.42289.rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
	<1273044314.3702.98.camel@localhost>
	<s5hmxwevlm4.wl%tiwai@suse.de>
	<1273049369.3702.127.camel@localhost>
	<1273050258.3702.133.camel@localhost>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.6 (Almost Unreal) SEMI/1.14.6 (Maruoka)
 FLIM/1.14.9 (=?UTF-8?B?R29qxY0=?=) APEL/10.7 Emacs/23.1
 (x86_64-suse-linux-gnu) MULE/6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.6 - "Maruoka")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

At Wed, 05 May 2010 12:04:18 +0300,
Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 2010-05-05 at 11:49 +0300, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> > > Fixing in the way of the later upstream is a bit too intrusive as a
> > > stable patch.  So, I'm also not sure whether we should take it,
> > > too...
> > 
> > To be frank I do not really understand what you mean.
> 
> If you meant 'let's not change it 2.6.34' - fair enough, it was already
> in 2.6.32, so there is probably no reason to hurry. But I suggest to
> still consider this as a big issue and fix as soon as we can.

Ah, sorry I was confused.  I somehow thought Rusty's patch has been
already merged after 2.6.32, but it didn't happen in reality.

Then I'm for merging the changes even for 2.6.34 although it's late.
In the API side, there aren't many changes.  And it might reduce the
whole binary size in the end by the use of module_parm_ops pointer,
too.


thanks,

Takashi