From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Russell King - ARM Linux Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2014 21:34:37 +0000 Subject: Re: [RFC] drop owner assignment from platform_drivers Message-Id: <20141010213437.GP5182@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> List-Id: References: <20141010072439.GA1741@katana> <20141010083627.GL5182@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20141010182604.GC6075@katana> In-Reply-To: <20141010182604.GC6075@katana> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: cocci@systeme.lip6.fr On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 08:26:05PM +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote: > platform_create_bundle() calls platform_driver_probe(). > platform_driver_probe() calls platform_driver_register(). > platform_driver_register() modifies driver.owner. > > So, it is correct from the point of view that it doesn't make sense to > set the .owner field if it gets overwritten anyhow. > > You got me wondering, though, that it could not be correct to call > platform_driver_register() from the platform core instead of module > init. I will check tomorrow. Still, this would be a bug independent of > my series. Although I'd need to respin it if platform_driver_probe() > needed a fix. This shows what the bad side-effect of people doing "cleanups" is. This bug was introduced by: commit 9447057eaff871dd7c63c808de761b8732407169 Author: Libo Chen Date: Sat May 25 12:40:50 2013 +0800 platform_device: use a macro instead of platform_driver_register I found a lot of mistakes using struct platform_driver without owner so I make a macro instead of the function platform_driver_register. It can set owner in it, then guys don`t care about module owner again. Signed-off-by: Libo Chen Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman So, this patch subsituted one set of mistakes for another mistake... -- FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: currently at 9.5Mbps down 400kbps up according to speedtest.net.