On Sun, Aug 15, 2021 at 04:49:55PM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> On 2021/08/15 16:06, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 15, 2021 at 03:52:45PM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> >> --- a/include/linux/genhd.h
> >> +++ b/include/linux/genhd.h
> >> @@ -303,9 +303,9 @@ struct gendisk *__blk_alloc_disk(int node);
> >> void blk_cleanup_disk(struct gendisk *disk);
> >>
> >> int __register_blkdev(unsigned int major, const char *name,
> >> - void (*probe)(dev_t devt));
> >> + void (*probe)(dev_t devt), struct module *owner);
> >> #define register_blkdev(major, name) \
> >> - __register_blkdev(major, name, NULL)
> >> + __register_blkdev(major, name, NULL, NULL)
> >> void unregister_blkdev(unsigned int major, const char *name);
> >
> > Do not force modules to put their own THIS_MODULE macro as a parameter,
> > put it in the .h file so that it happens automagically, much like the
> > usb_register() define in include/linux/usb.h is created.
>
> Sure. We can do like below.
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/genhd.h b/include/linux/genhd.h
> index 13b34177cc85..70f00641fa11 100644
> --- a/include/linux/genhd.h
> +++ b/include/linux/genhd.h
> @@ -302,10 +302,12 @@ extern void put_disk(struct gendisk *disk);
> struct gendisk *__blk_alloc_disk(int node);
> void blk_cleanup_disk(struct gendisk *disk);
>
> -int __register_blkdev(unsigned int major, const char *name,
> - void (*probe)(dev_t devt));
> +int ____register_blkdev(unsigned int major, const char *name,
> + void (*probe)(dev_t devt), struct module *owner);
> +#define __register_blkdev(major, name, probe) \
> + ____register_blkdev(major, name, probe, THIS_MODULE)
> #define register_blkdev(major, name) \
> - __register_blkdev(major, name, NULL)
> + ____register_blkdev(major, name, NULL, NULL)
Why stop at 4 _ characters?
{sigh}
I think you need a new naming scheme here...
> >
> > If you do that, you can probably get rid of the __register_blkdev()
> > direct calls as well...
>
> I assume "automagically" implies "do not patch individual unregister_blkdev() /
> __register_blkdev() callers". But "removing __register_blkdev() direct calls"
> requires "patching individual __register_blkdev() callers". I didn't catch
> what you suggested here.
Yes, that is a different thing, sorry for the confusion.
> Anyway, since this patch should be backported to 5.11+ kernels, lines changed
> should be kept minimal. We can do whatever remapping after this patch.
Don't worry about backports, fix it properly first.
thanks,
greg k-h
