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). It applies just fine to the latest linux-next tree, version -next-20240201, what tree/branch are you referring to here? thanks, greg k-h
