From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36F57C43381 for ; Sun, 17 Mar 2019 09:54:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07DBA21738 for ; Sun, 17 Mar 2019 09:54:41 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1552816481; bh=tLDhiWuf6J1c0N65fdVnBhkRCK9WvZ+7RJc9zwAeyMM=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:List-ID:From; b=VbNEvofzoNrjeid8QsM5c0gVZ6ZDKNKDV8I6E2LoIx64bypg3le86rf1yMJTWKsyV vCoYunaiNfWB+aTqgPJg/7dx1ChTQiuCm1eQsFRD9oFj5QDprZFyleLa0IlA7GZFHi Pf/mSJx4nyjIgRYzPH0wxE7tLY2/cpxWfg2uA1uU= Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726767AbfCQJyk (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Mar 2019 05:54:40 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:37152 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726092AbfCQJyj (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Mar 2019 05:54:39 -0400 Received: from localhost (5356596B.cm-6-7b.dynamic.ziggo.nl [83.86.89.107]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2846D2148D; Sun, 17 Mar 2019 09:54:38 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1552816478; bh=tLDhiWuf6J1c0N65fdVnBhkRCK9WvZ+7RJc9zwAeyMM=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=S12ijWzLwuMpFpQy7yJ/hv4wMoC6JQmqtsPKsVOkMVxor/MtqZehwvOmFs+vN+bYO VZQyNOJ7FoezQi3GBw1DdPomxDh+5Mkl5KyFkHuAXm8+aUZc7k9XDYlGJnEDKulDRS Ktz4ZsuV+YVGNVW+YfnXcF8GNYQIrpYnJC9xIuaU= Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2019 10:54:35 +0100 From: Greg KH To: "Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult" Cc: "Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, eric@anholt.net, stefan.wahren@i2se.com, f.fainelli@gmail.com, rjui@broadcom.com, sbranden@broadcom.com, bcm-kernel-feedback-list@broadcom.com, andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com, vz@mleia.com, matthias.bgg@gmail.com, yamada.masahiro@socionext.com, tklauser@distanz.ch, richard.genoud@gmail.com, macro@linux-mips.org, u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de, kernel@pengutronix.de, slemieux.tyco@gmail.com, andy.gross@linaro.org, david.brown@linaro.org, shawnguo@kernel.org, s.hauer@pengutronix.de, festevam@gmail.com, linux-imx@nxp.com, baohua@kernel.org, jacmet@sunsite.dk, linux-serial@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 10/45] drivers: tty: serial: zs: use devm_* functions Message-ID: <20190317095435.GB6906@kroah.com> References: <1552602855-26086-1-git-send-email-info@metux.net> <1552602855-26086-11-git-send-email-info@metux.net> <20190314225204.GB1795@kroah.com> <3734d588-6b9c-29e2-45b6-82e778f47602@metux.net> <20190315142628.GA30650@kroah.com> <20190316032630.GB2499@kroah.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.11.4 (2019-03-13) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Mar 16, 2019 at 10:17:11AM +0100, Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult wrote: > On 16.03.19 04:26, Greg KH wrote: > > > No, it's just that those systems do not allow those devices to be > > removed because they are probably not on a removable bus. > > Ok, devices (hw) might not be removable - that also the case for uarts > builtin some SoCs, or the good old PC w/ 8250. But does that also mean > that the driver should not be removable ? No, but 'rmmod' is not a normal operation that anyone ever does in a working system. It is only for developer's ease-of-use. > IMHO, even if that's the case, it's still inconsistent. The driver then > shouldn't support a remove at all (or even builtin only), not just > incomplete remove. Cleaning up properly when the module is unloaded is a good idea, but so far the patches you submitted did not change anything from a logic point of view. They all just cleaned up memory the same way it was cleaned up before, so I really do not understand what you are trying to do here. > >> Okay, I was on a wrong track here - I had the silly idea that it would > >> make things easier if we'd do it the same way everywhere. > > > > "Consistent" is good, and valid, but touching old drivers that have few > > users is always risky, and you need a solid reason to do so. > > Understood. > > By the way: do we have some people who have those old hw and could test? > Should we (try to) create some ? Perhaps some "tester" entry in > MAINTAINERS file ? (I could ask around several people who might have > lots of old / rare hardware.) Let's not clutter up MAINTAINERS with anything else please. > >> Understood. Assuming I've found some of these cases, shall I use devm > >> oder just add the missing release ? > > > > If it actually makes the code "simpler" or "more obvious", sure, that's > > fine. But churn for churns sake is not ok. > > Ok. > > > I put the review of new patch submissions on hold, yes. Almost all > > maintainers do that as we can not add new patches to our trees at that > > point in time. > > hmm, looks like a pipeline stall ;-) > why not collecting in a separate branch, which later gets rebased to > mainline when rc is out ? I do do that for subsystems that actually have a high patch rate. The tty/serial subsystem is not such a thing, and it can handle 2 weeks of delay just fine. > > And I do have other things I do during that period so it's not like I'm > > just sitting around doing nothing :) > > So it's also a fixed schedule for your other work. Understood. > > It seems that this workflow can confuse people. Few days ago, somebody > became nervous about missing reactions on patches. Your autoresponder > worked for me, but maybe not for everybody. Why would it not work for everybody? Kernel development has been done in this manner for over a decade. Having a 2 week window like this is good for the maintainers, remember they are the most limited resource we have, not developers. thanks, greg k-h