On Wednesday 09 December 2015 19:17:42 Paul Gortmaker wrote: > [Re: [PATCH 0/6] drivers/dma: drop modular code from non modular drivers] On 10/12/2015 (Thu 00:29) Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > On Wednesday 09 December 2015 18:21:56 Paul Gortmaker wrote: > > > This series of commits is a slice of a larger project to ensure > > > people don't have dead code for module removal in non-modular > > > drivers. Overall there is roughly 5k lines of dead code in the > > > kernel due to this. > > > > > > There is a quasi-separate theme, in that some of the drivers were > > > allowing an unbind implicitly since it is enabled by default. But > > > for core DMA infrastructure drivers, this doesn't seem useful -- so > > > we also disable that here which allows us to delete any ".remove" > > > functions from the drivers that would otherwise be called during the > > > (impossible to trigger) module removal. > > > > > > Since ARM covers these files the best of all architectures, each > > > file was build tested for allmodconfig on ARM, which at the same > > > time confirms that the files are not built with "CC [M]" -- hence > > > genuinely non-modular. > > > > > > My testing and the larger patch series in general has been done > > > against the latest linux-next tree. > > > > > > > > > > We are in the process of changing the DMA drivers to a new way of > > passing the "filter" function around. We can soon build them > > all as loadable modules again. > > Hi Arnd, > > Thanks for the feedback -- just to clarify, you are suggesting I hold > on the series until I see what emerges in the next merge window? > > It may take a few cycles, but I think we'll get there and should not remove the unload logic from any of these drivers. When we're done, there is no reason for a dmaengine driver to be built-in. Arnd -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe dmaengine" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
