On Friday 10 October 2014 09:24:39 Wolfram Sang wrote: > people found out that for platform_driver, we don't need to set the > .owner field because this is done by the platform driver core. So far, > so good. However, now I got patches removing the .owner field for this > single i2c driver or for that one. To prevent getting thousands of > patches fixing single drivers, I used coccinelle to remove all instances > from the kernel. The SmPL looks like this, it doesn't blindly remove all > THIS_MODULE, but checks if the platform_driver struct was really used by > a call actually setting the .owner field: Is the intention just to save a few lines in the kernel source, or are there any additional upsides to doing this? While it looks like an obvious cleanup, it also seems to me that there is zero effect in terms of functionality, code size or enabling future changes. I'm all for adding your semantic patch to scripts/coccinelle so it gets picked up by anyone writing new drivers or doing code cleanup on their driver, but I'm unsure about the value of applying all your patches for the existing drivers. Arnd -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
