Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 10 Oct 2014 22:34:37 +0100 | From | Russell King - ARM Linux <> | Subject | Re: [RFC] drop owner assignment from platform_drivers |
| |
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 08:26:05PM +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote: > platform_create_bundle() calls platform_driver_probe(). > platform_driver_probe() calls platform_driver_register(). > platform_driver_register() modifies driver.owner. > > So, it is correct from the point of view that it doesn't make sense to > set the .owner field if it gets overwritten anyhow. > > You got me wondering, though, that it could not be correct to call > platform_driver_register() from the platform core instead of module > init. I will check tomorrow. Still, this would be a bug independent of > my series. Although I'd need to respin it if platform_driver_probe() > needed a fix.
This shows what the bad side-effect of people doing "cleanups" is. This bug was introduced by:
commit 9447057eaff871dd7c63c808de761b8732407169 Author: Libo Chen <clbchenlibo.chen@huawei.com> Date: Sat May 25 12:40:50 2013 +0800
platform_device: use a macro instead of platform_driver_register
I found a lot of mistakes using struct platform_driver without owner so I make a macro instead of the function platform_driver_register. It can set owner in it, then guys don`t care about module owner again.
Signed-off-by: Libo Chen <libo.chen@huawei.com> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
So, this patch subsituted one set of mistakes for another mistake...
-- FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: currently at 9.5Mbps down 400kbps up according to speedtest.net.
| |