On 2024-01-30 05:31, Xu Yilun wrote: >> +#define fpga_mgr_register_full(parent, info) \ >> + __fpga_mgr_register_full(parent, info, THIS_MODULE) >> struct fpga_manager * >> -fpga_mgr_register_full(struct device *parent, const struct fpga_manager_info *info); >> +__fpga_mgr_register_full(struct device *parent, const struct fpga_manager_info *info, >> + struct module *owner); >> >> +#define fpga_mgr_register(parent, name, mops, priv) \ >> + __fpga_mgr_register(parent, name, mops, priv, THIS_MODULE) >> struct fpga_manager * >> -fpga_mgr_register(struct device *parent, const char *name, >> - const struct fpga_manager_ops *mops, void *priv); >> +__fpga_mgr_register(struct device *parent, const char *name, >> + const struct fpga_manager_ops *mops, void *priv, struct module *owner); >> + >> void fpga_mgr_unregister(struct fpga_manager *mgr); >> >> +#define devm_fpga_mgr_register_full(parent, info) \ >> + __devm_fpga_mgr_register_full(parent, info, THIS_MODULE) >> struct fpga_manager * >> -devm_fpga_mgr_register_full(struct device *parent, const struct fpga_manager_info *info); >> +__devm_fpga_mgr_register_full(struct device *parent, const struct fpga_manager_info *info, >> + struct module *owner); > > Add a line here. I can do it myself if you agree. Sure, that is fine by me. I also spotted a typo in the commit log body (in taken -> is taken). Do you want me to send a v6, or do you prefer to fix that in place? > > There is still a RFC prefix for this patch. Are you ready to get it merged? > If yes, Acked-by: Xu Yilun <yilun.xu@xxxxxxxxx> I'm ready for the patch to be merged. However, I recently sent an RFC to propose a safer implementation of try_module_get() that would simplify the code and may also benefit other subsystems. What do you think? https://lore.kernel.org/linux-modules/20240130193614.49772-1-marpagan@xxxxxxxxxx/ > Next time if you think patches are ready for serious review and merge, drop > the RFC prefix. That avoids an extra query. Okay, I'll do it like that next time. Thanks, Marco
