public inbox for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: arnd@arndb.de (Arnd Bergmann)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [RFC] drop owner assignment from platform_drivers
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2014 10:30:08 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <2106140.DbuFLh1xav@wuerfel> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20141010072439.GA1741@katana>

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?

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.

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.

	Arnd

  parent reply	other threads:[~2014-10-10  8:30 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 [this message]
2014-10-10 18:12   ` Wolfram Sang
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=2106140.DbuFLh1xav@wuerfel \
    --to=arnd@arndb.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