Re: [PATCH 1/2] mtd: nand: Drop mtd.owner requirement in nand_scan

Brian Norris
2016-04-03T06:14:47Z

On Sat, Apr 02, 2016 at 03:52:16PM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Apr 2016 15:26:49 -0700
> Brian Norris <computersforpeace@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 01, 2016 at 06:29:23PM -0300, Ezequiel Garcia wrote:
> > > Since commit 807f16d4db95 ("mtd: core: set some defaults
> > > when dev.parent is set"), it's now legal for drivers
> > > to call nand_scan and nand_scan_ident without setting
> > > mtd.owner.
> > >
> > > Drop the check and while at it remove the BUG() abuse.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Ezequiel Garcia <ezequiel@vanguardiasur.com.ar>
>
> Acked-by: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com>
>
[...]

> >
> > Ooh, yikes! Forgot this was there. I guess no one noticed, because fewer
> > drivers are using plain nand_scan() these days (instead of splitting up
> > nand_scan_ident() and nand_scan_tail()), and also, many NAND users don't
> > run their drivers as modules.
> >
> > Anyway, this is probably worth -stable, right? (i.e., "Fixes:
> > 807f16d4db95 ..." and "Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org>")
> >
> > I can take this directly, or Boris, if you feel like there will be other
> > for-v4.5 NAND material, you can queue this up instead.
>
> No, take it directly.

Applied patch 1 to linux-mtd.git. Thanks!

> On a more general note, not sure creating a nand/fixes branch and
> sending you PRs after each -rc (if fixes are available of course) is
> really efficient. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't expect to see more than a
> couple of fixes per release, and it's probably better if you keep
> taking them directly (with my acks).
>
> What do you think?

That's probably fine. I'll still keep my eyes open for fixes like this,
but ping me if you think I've missed anything.

Brian