On Thu, Feb 01, 2024 at 04:34:30PM +0200, Ilpo Järvinen wrote: > On Thu, 1 Feb 2024, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > On Thu, Feb 01, 2024 at 06:50:33PM +0530, Hegde, Suma wrote: > > > On 1/29/2024 6:16 PM, Ilpo Järvinen wrote: > > > > Caution: This message originated from an External Source. Use proper caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding. > > > > > > > > > > > > + Cc Suma Hegde. > > > > > > > > On Sun, 28 Jan 2024, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > > > > > > > The use of devm_*() functions works properly for when the device > > > > > structure itself is dynamic, but the hsmp driver is attempting to have a > > > > > local, static, struct device and then calls devm_() functions attaching > > > > > memory to the device that will never be freed. > > > > > > > > > > The logic of having a static struct device is almost never a wise > > > > > choice, but for now, just remove the use of devm_device_add_groups() in > > > > > this driver as it obviously is not needed. > > > > > > Hi Greg, > > > > > > Could you please hold on merging this patch for a week? I will push a patch > > > for converting platform specific structure's memory allocation from static > > > to a dynamic > > > > > > allocation. > > > > Push it where? Ususally we do "first patch wins" type stuff, why not > > just do your work on top of mine? > > > > Also, when you do make the needed changes, please remove the explicit > > call to create sysfs groups and use the default groups pointer instead, > > that will make things much simpler and avoid races in the code. > > Hi Greg, > > Well, if you really want to "win" :-), please provide an updated version > which considers the changes already made in the for-next branch (the > current one won't apply). Fair enough, I don't want to "win", I just want to squash any "hold off and don't make any changes to this file because I was going to plan on doing something else here in the future" type of stuff, as that is what has been documented to take down many projects in the past. That's why we almost always take patches that people have submitted today, instead of ignoring them for potential future changes, unless of course, they are not acceptable. I'll rebase on linux-next, rejecting it for that reason is totally valid :) thanks, greg k-h
