On Mon, Sep 07, 2015 at 06:16:21PM +0530, Sudip Mukherjee wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 07, 2015 at 02:13:38PM +0200, Andrey Shvetsov wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 04, 2015 at 04:22:04PM +0530, Sudip Mukherjee wrote:
> > > The platform driver core will set the owner value, we do not need to do
> > > it in the module.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Sudip Mukherjee <sudip@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/staging/most/hdm-dim2/dim2_hdm.c | 1 -
> > > 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/most/hdm-dim2/dim2_hdm.c b/drivers/staging/most/hdm-dim2/dim2_hdm.c
> > > index 5b0a588..4481a0b 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/staging/most/hdm-dim2/dim2_hdm.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/staging/most/hdm-dim2/dim2_hdm.c
> > > @@ -923,7 +923,6 @@ static struct platform_driver dim2_driver = {
> > > .id_table = dim2_id,
> > > .driver = {
> > > .name = "hdm_dim2",
> > > - .owner = THIS_MODULE,
> > I cannot accept this.
> >
> > This change is not significant for current kernel, but we still have customers
> > using kernels <= 3.10, where auto assignment of .owner does not exist.
> But this patch is for 4.4-rc1, and it is not marked for stable. Then how
> is it going to affect your customers who are still using <=3.10?
The customers will get MOST Linux Driver of 4.x and compile it with 3.10.
They'll not even see the warning, but missing owner is definitely not what they
want to have. This patch prepares wasted time of cusomers expiriencing the
issue and ours supporting resolving of some problem. But what we get instead?
--
regards
andy
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
