Re: [RFC PATCH v5 1/1] fpga: add an owner and use it to take the low-level module's refcount

[Marco Pagani <marpagan@redhat.com>]

On 2024-02-04 06:15, Xu Yilun wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 02, 2024 at 06:44:01PM +0100, Marco Pagani wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2024-01-30 05:31, Xu Yilun wrote:
>>>> +#define fpga_mgr_register_full(parent, info) \
>>>> +	__fpga_mgr_register_full(parent, info, THIS_MODULE)
>>>>  struct fpga_manager *
>>>> -fpga_mgr_register_full(struct device *parent, const struct fpga_manager_info *info);
>>>> +__fpga_mgr_register_full(struct device *parent, const struct fpga_manager_info *info,
>>>> +			 struct module *owner);
>>>>  
>>>> +#define fpga_mgr_register(parent, name, mops, priv) \
>>>> +	__fpga_mgr_register(parent, name, mops, priv, THIS_MODULE)
>>>>  struct fpga_manager *
>>>> -fpga_mgr_register(struct device *parent, const char *name,
>>>> -		  const struct fpga_manager_ops *mops, void *priv);
>>>> +__fpga_mgr_register(struct device *parent, const char *name,
>>>> +		    const struct fpga_manager_ops *mops, void *priv, struct module *owner);
>>>> +
>>>>  void fpga_mgr_unregister(struct fpga_manager *mgr);
>>>>  
>>>> +#define devm_fpga_mgr_register_full(parent, info) \
>>>> +	__devm_fpga_mgr_register_full(parent, info, THIS_MODULE)
>>>>  struct fpga_manager *
>>>> -devm_fpga_mgr_register_full(struct device *parent, const struct fpga_manager_info *info);
>>>> +__devm_fpga_mgr_register_full(struct device *parent, const struct fpga_manager_info *info,
>>>> +			      struct module *owner);
>>>
>>> Add a line here. I can do it myself if you agree.
>>
>> Sure, that is fine by me. I also spotted a typo in the commit log body
>> (in taken -> is taken). Do you want me to send a v6, or do you prefer
>> to fix that in place?
> 
> No need, I can fix it.
> 
>>
>>>
>>> There is still a RFC prefix for this patch. Are you ready to get it merged?
>>> If yes, Acked-by: Xu Yilun <yilun.xu@intel.com>
>>
>> I'm ready for the patch to be merged. However, I recently sent an RFC
>> to propose a safer implementation of try_module_get() that would
>> simplify the code and may also benefit other subsystems. What do you
>> think?
>>
>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-modules/20240130193614.49772-1-marpagan@redhat.com/
> 
> I suggest take your fix to linux-fpga/for-next now. If your try_module_get()
> proposal is applied before the end of this cycle, we could re-evaluate
> this patch.

That's fine by me.

Thanks,
Marco