Re: [PATCH[[2.5][3-11] update dvb subsystem core

[Michael Hunold <hunold@convergence.de>]

Hello Christoph, Linus,

>>The code does not behave differently. If DVB_DEVFS_ONLY is set, then the 
>>old chardev register interface is omitted.

> Which is a different behaviour, now you can't create a device node
> manually anymor.

I won't insist on keeping code that I haven't written. My only point is 
that we use the code in set-top-boxes, where every byte is valuable. But 
  I suspect that there are numerous other places where we could safe 
bytes... 8-)

 >  Also note that the feature you rely on here (devfs
 > presetting file->private_data) will go away in the next round of
 > patches,
 > see Al Viro's patchit for a generic replacement that works with or
 > without devfs.

Ok.

>>There is a functional dependency between the dvb-core and the actual dvb 
>>driver. So there is no need to increase the module count of the dvb-core 
>>if a new adapter is registered IMHO, because you cannot unload the 
>>dvb-core before the driver anyway.

> Okay, you're right I should have read more of the code to get the global
> picture.  You still wan't an owner field for at least struct dvb_device
> device, though - but the try_module_get must go into dvb_generic_open
> and maybe in more other places where you use the "backend" modules.

I don't get that, sorry. The backend modules have functional 
dependencies and register/deregister upon loading/unloading. There is 
never a call from the dvb-core to the backend modules. Do I really need 
an owner field then?

CU
Michael.