Hi Arnd, thanks for taking a look! On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 10:30:08AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > 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? As written above, I don't like getting patches removing this line for single drivers. I already got two and I am expecting more. So I'd prefer to do this on subsystem level. I will apply the I2C part, for sure. > 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. Well, the kernel image will compress better ;) And well, it is cleaner. Why should we set up something if it gets overwritten anyhow? > 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. I could try reducing the number of patches. Any other downsides? Thanks, Wolfram
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
