On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 5:45 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gre...@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 04:57:02AM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote: >> Hey, guys. >> >> On Fri, Mar 08, 2013 at 01:04:25AM +0100, Kay Sievers wrote: >> > > Sorry for the delay, I'm at a conference all this week, and haven't had >> > > much time to think about this. >> > > >> > > If Kay says this is ok for now, that's good enough for me. >> > >> > Yes, it looks fine to me. If we provide the unified handling of >> > classes and buses some day, this can probably go away, but until that >> > it looks fine and is straight forward to do it that way, >> >> How should this be routed? I can take it but Kay needs it too so >> workqueue tree probably isn't the best fit although I can set up a >> separate branch if needed. > > What patch set does Kay need it for? I have no objection for you to > take it through the workqueue tree:
The dbus bus has the same issues and needs the devices put under virtual/ and not the devices/ root. Kay -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
