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

[Xu Yilun <yilun.xu@linux.intel.com>]

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.

Thanks,
Yilun

> 
> > Next time if you think patches are ready for serious review and merge, drop
> > the RFC prefix. That avoids an extra query.
> 
> Okay, I'll do it like that next time.
> 
> Thanks,
> Marco
>