All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@xenotime.net>
To: "Justin P. Mattock" <justinmattock@gmail.com>
Cc: trivial@kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-audit@redhat.com, uclinux-dist-devel@blackfin.uclinux.org,
	linux-cris-kernel@axis.com, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-mips@linux-mips.org, linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, selinux@tycho.nsa.gov,
	sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org,
	netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Cosmetic:Partially remove deprecated __initcall() and change to
Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2010 17:33:55 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4BA6BAF3.10603@xenotime.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4BA407AC.5030506@gmail.com>

On 03/19/10 16:24, Justin P. Mattock wrote:
> On 03/19/2010 03:56 PM, Randy Dunlap wrote:
>> On 03/19/10 12:51, Justin P. Mattock wrote:
>>> After doing some things on a small issue,
>>> I noticed through web surfing, that there were patches
>>> submitted pertaining that __initcall is deprecated,
>>> and device_initcall should be used.
>>
>> Where was this discussion?  Do you have any pointers to it?
>>
> 
> The best info on this is scripts/checkpatch.pl
> line #2664
> 
> when I found this I just did a quick search of __initcall
> (which gives hits here and there)
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/23344/
> (also found others at around 2008 or so)

Thanks.  IMO there should be something in the kernel source tree
that says explicitly that __initcall is deprecated and should be
replaced by using <whatever should be used>.  That's missing.


>> I don't see any mention of __initcall being deprecated in
>> Linus' mainline git tree, or in linux-next, or in mmotm.
>> Where are those patches?
>>
> 
> I don't know(I'm out of the social pipeline when it comes to Linux news,
> and updates)..
> like in the explanation part of the patch
> I was looking into something else, then ran into this,
> so as a break(from what I was originally doing)
> decided to do this and submit.
> 
>>
>>> So as a change of subject(since what I was looking at
>>> was frustrating me),I decided to grep the whole tree
>>> and make the change(partially).
>>>
>>> Currently I'm running this patch on my system, kernel compiles
>>> without any errors or warnings.(thought there would be a speed increase
>>> but didn't see much(if any)).
>>
>> No, __initcall(x) is just a shorthand version of typing
>> device_initcall(x).  They do the same thing.
>>
> 
> yep, that's what I found out as well(reason for the cosmetic
> in the subject line).
> 
>>> Biggest problem I have though is testing this on other hardware types
>>> (I only have a macbook,and an iMac).
>>> So please if you have the access to other arch/hardware types please
>>> test.
>>>
>>> Now what I mean by partially is the __initcall function is still
>>> there, so(if any) userspace apps/libs depend on this it's there
>>> so they dont break and/or any other subsystem, that needs time
>>> to make the changes.
>>
>> The only thing that might be affected is building out-of-tree drivers,
>> but those are easy to fix.
>>
> 
> alright..main concern is making sure things don't break in the
> kernel(even though things do).
> 
> I can have a go at the header files, submit
> then if it's something people agree they want to do, then they
> can go from there(if not it's fine as well).
> 
>>> Note:
>>> the remaining files that still have __initcall in them are:
>>> (according to grep)
>>>
>>> arch/um/include/shared/init.h
>>> include/linux/init.h
>>> scripts/checkpatch.pl
>>>
>>> either I or somebody else, can change this(although a bit
>>> concerned about breaking things).
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Justin P. Mattock<justinmattock@gmail.com>
>>> ---


-- 
~Randy

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@xenotime.net>
To: "Justin P. Mattock" <justinmattock@gmail.com>
Cc: trivial@kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-audit@redhat.com, uclinux-dist-devel@blackfin.uclinux.org,
	linux-cris-kernel@axis.com, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-mips@linux-mips.org, linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, selinux@tycho.nsa.gov,
	sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org,
	netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Cosmetic:Partially remove deprecated __initcall() and
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 00:33:55 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4BA6BAF3.10603@xenotime.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4BA407AC.5030506@gmail.com>

On 03/19/10 16:24, Justin P. Mattock wrote:
> On 03/19/2010 03:56 PM, Randy Dunlap wrote:
>> On 03/19/10 12:51, Justin P. Mattock wrote:
>>> After doing some things on a small issue,
>>> I noticed through web surfing, that there were patches
>>> submitted pertaining that __initcall is deprecated,
>>> and device_initcall should be used.
>>
>> Where was this discussion?  Do you have any pointers to it?
>>
> 
> The best info on this is scripts/checkpatch.pl
> line #2664
> 
> when I found this I just did a quick search of __initcall
> (which gives hits here and there)
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/23344/
> (also found others at around 2008 or so)

Thanks.  IMO there should be something in the kernel source tree
that says explicitly that __initcall is deprecated and should be
replaced by using <whatever should be used>.  That's missing.


>> I don't see any mention of __initcall being deprecated in
>> Linus' mainline git tree, or in linux-next, or in mmotm.
>> Where are those patches?
>>
> 
> I don't know(I'm out of the social pipeline when it comes to Linux news,
> and updates)..
> like in the explanation part of the patch
> I was looking into something else, then ran into this,
> so as a break(from what I was originally doing)
> decided to do this and submit.
> 
>>
>>> So as a change of subject(since what I was looking at
>>> was frustrating me),I decided to grep the whole tree
>>> and make the change(partially).
>>>
>>> Currently I'm running this patch on my system, kernel compiles
>>> without any errors or warnings.(thought there would be a speed increase
>>> but didn't see much(if any)).
>>
>> No, __initcall(x) is just a shorthand version of typing
>> device_initcall(x).  They do the same thing.
>>
> 
> yep, that's what I found out as well(reason for the cosmetic
> in the subject line).
> 
>>> Biggest problem I have though is testing this on other hardware types
>>> (I only have a macbook,and an iMac).
>>> So please if you have the access to other arch/hardware types please
>>> test.
>>>
>>> Now what I mean by partially is the __initcall function is still
>>> there, so(if any) userspace apps/libs depend on this it's there
>>> so they dont break and/or any other subsystem, that needs time
>>> to make the changes.
>>
>> The only thing that might be affected is building out-of-tree drivers,
>> but those are easy to fix.
>>
> 
> alright..main concern is making sure things don't break in the
> kernel(even though things do).
> 
> I can have a go at the header files, submit
> then if it's something people agree they want to do, then they
> can go from there(if not it's fine as well).
> 
>>> Note:
>>> the remaining files that still have __initcall in them are:
>>> (according to grep)
>>>
>>> arch/um/include/shared/init.h
>>> include/linux/init.h
>>> scripts/checkpatch.pl
>>>
>>> either I or somebody else, can change this(although a bit
>>> concerned about breaking things).
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Justin P. Mattock<justinmattock@gmail.com>
>>> ---


-- 
~Randy

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@xenotime.net>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Cosmetic:Partially remove deprecated __initcall() and
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 00:33:55 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4BA6BAF3.10603@xenotime.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4BA407AC.5030506@gmail.com>

On 03/19/10 16:24, Justin P. Mattock wrote:
> On 03/19/2010 03:56 PM, Randy Dunlap wrote:
>> On 03/19/10 12:51, Justin P. Mattock wrote:
>>> After doing some things on a small issue,
>>> I noticed through web surfing, that there were patches
>>> submitted pertaining that __initcall is deprecated,
>>> and device_initcall should be used.
>>
>> Where was this discussion?  Do you have any pointers to it?
>>
> 
> The best info on this is scripts/checkpatch.pl
> line #2664
> 
> when I found this I just did a quick search of __initcall
> (which gives hits here and there)
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/23344/
> (also found others at around 2008 or so)

Thanks.  IMO there should be something in the kernel source tree
that says explicitly that __initcall is deprecated and should be
replaced by using <whatever should be used>.  That's missing.


>> I don't see any mention of __initcall being deprecated in
>> Linus' mainline git tree, or in linux-next, or in mmotm.
>> Where are those patches?
>>
> 
> I don't know(I'm out of the social pipeline when it comes to Linux news,
> and updates)..
> like in the explanation part of the patch
> I was looking into something else, then ran into this,
> so as a break(from what I was originally doing)
> decided to do this and submit.
> 
>>
>>> So as a change of subject(since what I was looking at
>>> was frustrating me),I decided to grep the whole tree
>>> and make the change(partially).
>>>
>>> Currently I'm running this patch on my system, kernel compiles
>>> without any errors or warnings.(thought there would be a speed increase
>>> but didn't see much(if any)).
>>
>> No, __initcall(x) is just a shorthand version of typing
>> device_initcall(x).  They do the same thing.
>>
> 
> yep, that's what I found out as well(reason for the cosmetic
> in the subject line).
> 
>>> Biggest problem I have though is testing this on other hardware types
>>> (I only have a macbook,and an iMac).
>>> So please if you have the access to other arch/hardware types please
>>> test.
>>>
>>> Now what I mean by partially is the __initcall function is still
>>> there, so(if any) userspace apps/libs depend on this it's there
>>> so they dont break and/or any other subsystem, that needs time
>>> to make the changes.
>>
>> The only thing that might be affected is building out-of-tree drivers,
>> but those are easy to fix.
>>
> 
> alright..main concern is making sure things don't break in the
> kernel(even though things do).
> 
> I can have a go at the header files, submit
> then if it's something people agree they want to do, then they
> can go from there(if not it's fine as well).
> 
>>> Note:
>>> the remaining files that still have __initcall in them are:
>>> (according to grep)
>>>
>>> arch/um/include/shared/init.h
>>> include/linux/init.h
>>> scripts/checkpatch.pl
>>>
>>> either I or somebody else, can change this(although a bit
>>> concerned about breaking things).
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Justin P. Mattock<justinmattock@gmail.com>
>>> ---


-- 
~Randy

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: rdunlap@xenotime.net (Randy Dunlap)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH] Cosmetic:Partially remove deprecated __initcall() and change to
Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2010 17:33:55 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4BA6BAF3.10603@xenotime.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4BA407AC.5030506@gmail.com>

On 03/19/10 16:24, Justin P. Mattock wrote:
> On 03/19/2010 03:56 PM, Randy Dunlap wrote:
>> On 03/19/10 12:51, Justin P. Mattock wrote:
>>> After doing some things on a small issue,
>>> I noticed through web surfing, that there were patches
>>> submitted pertaining that __initcall is deprecated,
>>> and device_initcall should be used.
>>
>> Where was this discussion?  Do you have any pointers to it?
>>
> 
> The best info on this is scripts/checkpatch.pl
> line #2664
> 
> when I found this I just did a quick search of __initcall
> (which gives hits here and there)
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/23344/
> (also found others at around 2008 or so)

Thanks.  IMO there should be something in the kernel source tree
that says explicitly that __initcall is deprecated and should be
replaced by using <whatever should be used>.  That's missing.


>> I don't see any mention of __initcall being deprecated in
>> Linus' mainline git tree, or in linux-next, or in mmotm.
>> Where are those patches?
>>
> 
> I don't know(I'm out of the social pipeline when it comes to Linux news,
> and updates)..
> like in the explanation part of the patch
> I was looking into something else, then ran into this,
> so as a break(from what I was originally doing)
> decided to do this and submit.
> 
>>
>>> So as a change of subject(since what I was looking at
>>> was frustrating me),I decided to grep the whole tree
>>> and make the change(partially).
>>>
>>> Currently I'm running this patch on my system, kernel compiles
>>> without any errors or warnings.(thought there would be a speed increase
>>> but didn't see much(if any)).
>>
>> No, __initcall(x) is just a shorthand version of typing
>> device_initcall(x).  They do the same thing.
>>
> 
> yep, that's what I found out as well(reason for the cosmetic
> in the subject line).
> 
>>> Biggest problem I have though is testing this on other hardware types
>>> (I only have a macbook,and an iMac).
>>> So please if you have the access to other arch/hardware types please
>>> test.
>>>
>>> Now what I mean by partially is the __initcall function is still
>>> there, so(if any) userspace apps/libs depend on this it's there
>>> so they dont break and/or any other subsystem, that needs time
>>> to make the changes.
>>
>> The only thing that might be affected is building out-of-tree drivers,
>> but those are easy to fix.
>>
> 
> alright..main concern is making sure things don't break in the
> kernel(even though things do).
> 
> I can have a go at the header files, submit
> then if it's something people agree they want to do, then they
> can go from there(if not it's fine as well).
> 
>>> Note:
>>> the remaining files that still have __initcall in them are:
>>> (according to grep)
>>>
>>> arch/um/include/shared/init.h
>>> include/linux/init.h
>>> scripts/checkpatch.pl
>>>
>>> either I or somebody else, can change this(although a bit
>>> concerned about breaking things).
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Justin P. Mattock<justinmattock@gmail.com>
>>> ---


-- 
~Randy

  reply	other threads:[~2010-03-22  0:33 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2010-03-19 19:51 [PATCH] Cosmetic:Partially remove deprecated __initcall() and change to Justin P. Mattock
2010-03-19 19:51 ` Justin P. Mattock
2010-03-19 19:51 ` Justin P. Mattock
2010-03-19 19:51 ` Justin P. Mattock
2010-03-19 19:51 ` Justin P. Mattock
2010-03-19 22:56 ` Randy Dunlap
2010-03-19 22:56   ` Randy Dunlap
2010-03-19 22:56   ` [PATCH] Cosmetic:Partially remove deprecated __initcall() and Randy Dunlap
2010-03-19 22:56   ` Randy Dunlap
2010-03-19 23:24   ` [PATCH] Cosmetic:Partially remove deprecated __initcall() and change to Justin P. Mattock
2010-03-19 23:24     ` Justin P. Mattock
2010-03-19 23:24     ` [PATCH] Cosmetic:Partially remove deprecated __initcall() and Justin P. Mattock
2010-03-19 23:24     ` [PATCH] Cosmetic:Partially remove deprecated __initcall() and change to Justin P. Mattock
2010-03-19 23:24     ` [PATCH] Cosmetic:Partially remove deprecated __initcall() and Justin P. Mattock
2010-03-22  0:33     ` Randy Dunlap [this message]
2010-03-22  0:33       ` [PATCH] Cosmetic:Partially remove deprecated __initcall() and change to Randy Dunlap
2010-03-22  0:33       ` [PATCH] Cosmetic:Partially remove deprecated __initcall() and Randy Dunlap
2010-03-22  0:33       ` Randy Dunlap
2010-03-22  1:04       ` [PATCH] Cosmetic:Partially remove deprecated __initcall() and change to Justin P. mattock
2010-03-22  1:04         ` Justin P. mattock
2010-03-22  1:04         ` [PATCH] Cosmetic:Partially remove deprecated __initcall() and Justin P. mattock
2010-03-22  1:04         ` [PATCH] Cosmetic:Partially remove deprecated __initcall() and change to Justin P. mattock
2010-03-22  1:04         ` [PATCH] Cosmetic:Partially remove deprecated __initcall() and Justin P. mattock

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=4BA6BAF3.10603@xenotime.net \
    --to=rdunlap@xenotime.net \
    --cc=justinmattock@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-audit@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-cris-kernel@axis.com \
    --cc=linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mips@linux-mips.org \
    --cc=linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-s390@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=selinux@tycho.nsa.gov \
    --cc=sparclinux@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=trivial@kernel.org \
    --cc=uclinux-dist-devel@blackfin.uclinux.org \
    --cc=x86@kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.