public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Wolfram Sang <wsa@the-dreams.de>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>,
	Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	cocci@systeme.lip6.fr
Subject: Re: [RFC] drop owner assignment from platform_drivers
Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2014 18:56:51 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20141011165650.GA1263@katana> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2769473.KEN6DZKnT7@wuerfel>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1066 bytes --]


> > You got me wondering, though, that it could not be correct to call
> > platform_driver_register() from the platform core instead of module
> > init. I will check tomorrow. Still, this would be a bug independent of
> > my series. Although I'd need to respin it if platform_driver_probe()
> > needed a fix.
> 
> Right, this seems to be a preexisting bug. platform_create_bundle 
> and platform_driver_probe will both overwrite the .owner field with
> NULL since they live in builtin code. They need to be replaced with
> __platform_driver_probe and __platform_driver_register that both
> take an extra owner argument passed down from the caller in the driver
> module.

Yeah, that would be one solution. However, my personal favourite would
meanwhile be to revert the commit that Russell mentioned. I think it is
cleaner to have the owner explicitly set in the module rather than
hidden away by a function call. However, grepping through include/linux,
there are a few subsystems hiding it this way. So, it is a pattern
somewhow. Oh well...


[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]

  reply	other threads:[~2014-10-11 16:57 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-10-10  7:24 [RFC] drop owner assignment from platform_drivers Wolfram Sang
2014-10-10  7:54 ` [Cocci] " Julia Lawall
2014-10-10 18:04   ` Wolfram Sang
2014-10-10  8:30 ` Arnd Bergmann
2014-10-10 18:12   ` Wolfram Sang
2014-10-10 19:39     ` Arnd Bergmann
2014-10-10  8:36 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2014-10-10 18:26   ` Wolfram Sang
2014-10-10 19:42     ` Arnd Bergmann
2014-10-11 16:56       ` Wolfram Sang [this message]
2014-10-11 17:15         ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2014-10-11 20:55         ` Greg KH
2014-10-12  5:51           ` Wolfram Sang
2014-10-12 14:24             ` Greg KH
2014-10-12 17:01               ` Wolfram Sang
2014-10-10 21:34     ` Russell King - ARM Linux

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20141011165650.GA1263@katana \
    --to=wsa@the-dreams.de \
    --cc=arnd@arndb.de \
    --cc=cocci@systeme.lip6.fr \
    --cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux@arm.linux.org.uk \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox