Hey Emilio,
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 07:55:08PM -0400, Emilio G. Cota wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 10:52:41 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 11:02:49AM +0200, Manohar Vanga wrote:
> > > --- a/drivers/staging/vme/vme_bridge.h
> > > +++ b/drivers/staging/vme/vme_bridge.h
> > > @@ -115,9 +115,8 @@ struct vme_bridge {
> > > struct list_head bus_list; /* list of VME buses */
> > > struct module *owner; /* module that owns the bridge */
> > >
> > > - struct device dev[VME_SLOTS_MAX]; /* Device registered with
> > > - * device model on VME bus
> > > - */
> > > + struct vme_dev dev[VME_SLOTS_MAX]; /* Device registered
> > > + * on VME bus */
> >
> > Overall, this is the right way to go, using a vme_dev.
> >
> > BUT, you should never have a static list of devices, these should be
> > pointers, not actual structures here, otherwise your reference counting
> > just got all messed up and is wrong.
> >
> > And yes, I know you didn't create the code this way, but it needs to be
> > fixed _before_ you make this kind of a change.
>
> True, I overlooked this while reviewing >_<
>
> Manohar, have a look at vme_unregister_driver_ng() and
> __vme_register_driver_bus() in this patch:
>
> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1054046
I actually threw the static devices out of the code in patch 3. I didn't
introduce it here as I thought the changes were unrelated (introducing
struct vme_dev across the code and getting rid of that static device
array).
--
/manohar
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
