[PATCH 00/19] driver:usb&net: add missing platform_driver owner

[guz.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com (Gu Zheng)]

On 05/21/2013 04:26 PM, Libo Chen wrote:

> On 2013/5/21 16:00, Gu Zheng wrote:
>> On 05/21/2013 02:41 PM, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
>>
>>> Dear David Miller,
>>>
>>> On Mon, 20 May 2013 23:26:19 -0700 (PDT), David Miller wrote:
>>>> From: Libo Chen <libo.chen@huawei.com>
>>>> Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 10:42:00 +0800
>>>>
>>>>> I find a lot of mistakes using struct platform_driver without owner.
>>>>> So I pick up some of them including usb and net modules
>>>>
>>>> Instead of doing it this way, which is obviously error prone and
>>>> easy to forget, make platform_driver_register() be a macro which
>>>> sets the module owner field then calls the real
>>>> __platform_driver_register().
>>>
>>> Or, maybe make the existing module_platform_driver() macro do this?
>>
>>
>> But not all the modules use module_platform_driver() macro to replace the module init/exit.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Gu
>>
> 
> yes, there are many drivers register platform_driver by platform_driver_register manually.
> 
> make both platform_driver_register() and module_platform_driver()  to check and set the module owner field?


No, module_platform_driver() will call platform_driver_register() to register platform_driver, just do it in
platform_driver_register() is enough.
As David mentioned, making platform_driver_register() be a macro and sets the module owner field in it, seems
a good way.

Thanks,
Gu

> 
> 
> 
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>>
>>> Thomas
>>
>>
>>
>> .
>>
> 
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>