From: wsa@the-dreams.de (Wolfram Sang)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [RFC] drop owner assignment from platform_drivers
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2014 20:12:21 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20141010181218.GB6075@katana> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2106140.DbuFLh1xav@wuerfel>
Hi Arnd,
thanks for taking a look!
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 10:30:08AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Friday 10 October 2014 09:24:39 Wolfram Sang wrote:
> > people found out that for platform_driver, we don't need to set the
> > .owner field because this is done by the platform driver core. So far,
> > so good. However, now I got patches removing the .owner field for this
> > single i2c driver or for that one. To prevent getting thousands of
> > patches fixing single drivers, I used coccinelle to remove all instances
> > from the kernel. The SmPL looks like this, it doesn't blindly remove all
> > THIS_MODULE, but checks if the platform_driver struct was really used by
> > a call actually setting the .owner field:
>
> Is the intention just to save a few lines in the kernel source, or are
> there any additional upsides to doing this?
As written above, I don't like getting patches removing this line for
single drivers. I already got two and I am expecting more. So I'd prefer
to do this on subsystem level. I will apply the I2C part, for sure.
> While it looks like an obvious cleanup, it also seems to me that there
> is zero effect in terms of functionality, code size or enabling future
> changes.
Well, the kernel image will compress better ;) And well, it is cleaner.
Why should we set up something if it gets overwritten anyhow?
> I'm all for adding your semantic patch to scripts/coccinelle so it gets
> picked up by anyone writing new drivers or doing code cleanup on their
> driver, but I'm unsure about the value of applying all your patches
> for the existing drivers.
I could try reducing the number of patches. Any other downsides?
Thanks,
Wolfram
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20141010/39384089/attachment.sig>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-10-10 18:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-10-10 7:24 [RFC] drop owner assignment from platform_drivers Wolfram Sang
2014-10-10 7:54 ` [Cocci] " Julia Lawall
2014-10-10 18:04 ` Wolfram Sang
2014-10-10 8:30 ` Arnd Bergmann
2014-10-10 18:12 ` Wolfram Sang [this message]
2014-10-10 19:39 ` Arnd Bergmann
2014-10-10 8:36 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2014-10-10 18:26 ` Wolfram Sang
2014-10-10 19:42 ` Arnd Bergmann
2014-10-11 16:56 ` Wolfram Sang
2014-10-11 17:15 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2014-10-11 20:55 ` Greg KH
2014-10-12 5:51 ` Wolfram Sang
2014-10-12 14:24 ` Greg KH
2014-10-12 17:01 ` Wolfram Sang
2014-10-10 21:34 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
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=20141010181218.GB6075@katana \
--to=wsa@the-dreams.de \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox