Re: [2/4] ACPI / battery: reorder headers alphabetically

["Ognjen Galić" <smclt30p@gmail.com>]

On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 01:06:47AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 12:50 AM, Ognjen Galić <smclt30p@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 12:40:13AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >> On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 12:55 PM, Andy Shevchenko
> >> <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> >> > On Sat, 2018-01-13 at 12:53 +0100, Ognjen Galić wrote:
> >> >> > -#include <linux/kernel.h>
> >> >> > -#include <linux/module.h>
> >> >> > -#include <linux/types.h>
> >> >> > -#include <linux/jiffies.h>
> >> >> > #include <linux/async.h>
> >> >> > -#include <linux/dmi.h>
> >> >> > #include <linux/delay.h>
> >> >> > +#include <linux/dmi.h>
> >> >> > +#include <linux/jiffies.h>
> >> >> > +#include <linux/kernel.h>
> >> >> > +#include <linux/module.h>
> >> >> > #include <linux/slab.h>
> >> >> > #include <linux/suspend.h>
> >> >> > -#include <asm/unaligned.h>
> >> >> > +#include <linux/types.h>
> >> >>
> >> >> These changes completely break my patch:
> >> >> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10142157/
> >> >>
> >> >> Can we please postpone this patch until I hear back from Rafael
> >> >> about my series, as my series does some of the things this patch
> >> >> series does (like defining pr_fmt to shorten log prints) and this
> >> >> is a much smaller changeset and would require small changes on
> >> >> conflicts compared to my series?
> >> >
> >> > Definitely on both series we need to hear from Rafael.
> >>
> >> Right, I still need to convince myself that the Ognjen's series
> >> actually works in all cases which I'm not quite sure about ATM.
> >
> > What edge cases are you concerned about?
> 
> Initialization ordering, basically.
> 
> It appears to work only under specific assumptions that are not
> guaranteed to be satisfied universally, but I need to walk though it
> again to check that.

What are you concerned about? Race conditions in the hooking portions?