On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 1:42 AM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, 2018-05-31 at 00:31 +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: >> On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 12:07 AM, Eddie James >> <eajames@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> I'll comment the series later, though you have to address previous >> comments first: >> - understand devm_ purpose and how it works > > I think it is perfectly understood and I don't see what your problem > here is. So please be a proper civil human being an express your > concern precisely rather than with aggressive comments. I apologize for this kind of tone, let's assume it was a bad day. > Now to clarify that specific point, devm purpose is to automatically > clean up the resources used by the device when it is torn down. > > However, in this specific case, it makes sense to dispose of the port > structure explicitly because this is a failure in registering an > individual port which doesn't lead to a failure of the entire driver. > > Thus not freeing it means the structure would remain allocated > uselessly until the whole driver is torn down. Yep, so, why do we care? If it holds few hundreds of bytes, can't we live with it? If no, the devm_k*alloc() is a wrong choice in the first place. >> - discuss with maintainer a design of enumerating ports > > I've been at that game for at least a good 2 decades. Maintainers > generally do *not* discuss design until a patch is proposed. I even > still try every now and then, maintainers are like lawyers, they don't > want to tell you what to do in case they still want to reject it after > seeing it later :-) I know I've been one of them for long enough. > > If you have specific issues with how this is done, please express them > clearly. It's quite possible that there's some better way to do what > Eddie is doing here, but without *construtive* feedback this is > pointless. It feels like you duplicate approach which is done in OF generic case. That is my concern. Though, if Wolfram is telling that is OK, I have no objections. > I'm disappointed here because we have an example of somebody rather new > producing what is overall pretty damn good code, That is true. His code much better than many I have seen before. > despite a few corner > issues, and being (again) treated like crap. Sorry for that, life is harsh. > This isn't the right way to operate, and I believe this has been made > clear many times before. Yes. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
