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 --]
next prev parent 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