Re: [PATCH] irqchip/qcom-irq-combiner: Rename driver struct to end in _driver

[Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>]

On Mon, Jun 30 2025 at 21:40, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 30, 2025 at 08:01:53PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 30 2025 at 19:23, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
>> > The modpost section mismatch checks are more lax for objects that have a
>> > name that ends in "_probe". This is not justified here though, so rename
>> 
>> That's a truly bad design or lack of such.
>> 
>> Why can't this muck use foo_driver(name) foo_probe(name) annotations to
>> make it entirely clear what is tested for instead of oracling it out of
>> the name itself. That would make it too easy to understand and analyse.
>
> I don't understand what you're suggesting here. Either I got it wrong or
> it is insufficient because every object is checked, not only the driver
> structs. That would result in more exceptions/special cases than we have
> now.
>
> Anyhow, I agree that depending on the name is unfortunate, maybe we can
> come up with something more clever?

That's what I was referring to. Doing checks based on struct names is a
bad idea. Having distinct '...driver_probe(name)' and ...driver(name)'
macros to distinguish the functionality is the proper thing to do and
way simpler to analyse than names.