On Mon, Jul 26 2021, Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx> wrote: > Only a single driver actually sets the ->request method, so don't print > a scary warning if it isn't. > > Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx> > --- > drivers/vfio/mdev/mdev_core.c | 4 ---- > 1 file changed, 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/vfio/mdev/mdev_core.c b/drivers/vfio/mdev/mdev_core.c > index b16606ebafa1..b314101237fe 100644 > --- a/drivers/vfio/mdev/mdev_core.c > +++ b/drivers/vfio/mdev/mdev_core.c > @@ -138,10 +138,6 @@ int mdev_register_device(struct device *dev, const struct mdev_parent_ops *ops) > if (!dev) > return -EINVAL; > > - /* Not mandatory, but its absence could be a problem */ > - if (!ops->request) > - dev_info(dev, "Driver cannot be asked to release device\n"); > - > mutex_lock(&parent_list_lock); > > /* Check for duplicate */ We also log a warning if we would like to call ->request() but none was provided, so I think that's fine. Reviewed-by: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@xxxxxxxxxx> But I wonder why nobody else implements this? Lack of surprise removal?
