From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jean Delvare Subject: Re: [PATCH]I2C device - release cleanup Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 17:21:43 +0100 Message-ID: <20100323172143.6b078b2e@hyperion.delvare> References: <20100323135410.47276f58@hyperion.delvare> <0016e6d64c23d0770e0482776d51@google.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <0016e6d64c23d0770e0482776d51-hpIqsD4AKlfQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-i2c-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Jean-Michel Hautbois Cc: Ben Dooks , linux-i2c-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 13:02:41 +0000, jhautbois-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org wrote: > Hi Jean, > > < snip > > > Did you test your patch? I am very skeptical that calling > > > single_release() out of the blue is the right thing to do. My instinct > > > tells me that single_release() is only meant for callers of > > > single_open(). > > Well, using this call works fine with my hardware. > I would say, as before :). > Looking at the source code of single_release, this is very similar to what > is done today. > > But yes, it would also be interesting to use single_open in the open() > syscall. > I think this would be nicer to use only single_*() functions. > > Maybe is it interesting to submit a patch that does a cleanup for all the > i2c-dev file ? And not only the release function ? Yes, that would be better. If you do that, please make sure to run your patch through scripts/checkpatch.pl before sending it. -- Jean Delvare