Re: removing set_clientdata(NULL)

[Wolfram Sang <w.sang-bIcnvbaLZ9MEGnE8C9+IrQ@public.gmane.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2350 bytes --]

On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 05:27:34PM +0200, Jean Delvare wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 17:09:56 +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> > Hi Jean,
> > 
> > > Sorry for being a little quiet, I took a long, well-deserved week-end
> > > off and didn't have the time to reply before I left. Now I'm back...
> > 
> > No worries, no rush :)
> > 
> > > Yes, my intent was to add a call to i2c_set_clientdata(x, NULL) in
> > > i2c_device_remove(). We would do this immediately, so that drivers can
> > > start removing the call on their end quickly (and new ones are not
> > > added.)
> > > 
> > > Can you please send the patch for i2c-core and Documentation/i2c? It's
> > > not difficult but I don't want to steal your credits.
> > 
> > Yes, can do this in a few hours (already midnight here), this is for 2.6.34
> > then.
> > 
> > > It would also be fair to warn all the developers you already contacted
> > > with your first attempt and let them know that it is being cancelled,
> > > and let them know the new plan. Hopefully this will avoid useless
> > > commits.
> > 
> > Can do this, too. About the removal of the i2c_set_clientdata-calls:
> > 
> > - shall I prepare a series for that, too?
> 
> Not sure what you mean there... What's the alternative?

I was confused by your "so that drivers can start removing the call on their
end quickly". It sounded a bit like they should care themselves.

> > - also for 2.6.34?
> 
> No, 2.6.35. This touches too many drivers for 2.6.34 at this point in
> time.

I agree. So I base the removal-patch on rc3, so it can go to linux-next. If
there are other users of i2c_set_clientdata popping up until the merge-window,
it will be handled by an incremental patch.

> > - also patches per subsystem?
> 
> Not sure if it's worth the effort.

Not much effort, I made scripts for that :) Still, I think it should go in just
using one commit. Let's hope it won't get too intrusive (= creating conflicts).

> > - shall this better go via the i2c-tree?
> 
> This seems simpler, yes. I don't think subsystem or driver maintainers
> need to be bothered with what is really only a cleanup.

Yes.

Regards,

   Wolfram

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Wolfram Sang                |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]