If there is no driver match function, the driver core assumes that each
candidate pair (driver, device) matches, see driver_match_device().
Drop the bus's match function that always returned 1 and so
implements the same behaviour as when there is no match function
Signed-off-by: Lizhe <[email protected]>
---
net/iucv/iucv.c | 6 ------
1 file changed, 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/net/iucv/iucv.c b/net/iucv/iucv.c
index fc3fddeb6f36..7dd15dead88e 100644
--- a/net/iucv/iucv.c
+++ b/net/iucv/iucv.c
@@ -62,14 +62,8 @@
#define IUCV_IPNORPY 0x10
#define IUCV_IPALL 0x80
-static int iucv_bus_match(struct device *dev, struct device_driver *drv)
-{
- return 0;
-}
-
struct bus_type iucv_bus = {
.name = "iucv",
- .match = iucv_bus_match,
};
EXPORT_SYMBOL(iucv_bus);
--
2.34.1
On Sun, Mar 19, 2023 at 01:08:40PM +0800, Lizhe wrote:
> If there is no driver match function, the driver core assumes that each
> candidate pair (driver, device) matches, see driver_match_device().
>
> Drop the bus's match function that always returned 1 and so
> implements the same behaviour as when there is no match function
...
>
> Signed-off-by: Lizhe <[email protected]>
> ---
> net/iucv/iucv.c | 6 ------
> 1 file changed, 6 deletions(-)
...
> -static int iucv_bus_match(struct device *dev, struct device_driver *drv)
> -{
> - return 0;
^^^^^^^^
If I'm not wrong then 0 != 1.
On Sun, 19 Mar 2023 21:16:31 +0100
Heiko Carstens <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 19, 2023 at 01:08:40PM +0800, Lizhe wrote:
> > If there is no driver match function, the driver core assumes that each
> > candidate pair (driver, device) matches, see driver_match_device().
> >
> > Drop the bus's match function that always returned 1 and so
> > implements the same behaviour as when there is no match function
> ...
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Lizhe <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > net/iucv/iucv.c | 6 ------
> > 1 file changed, 6 deletions(-)
> ...
> > -static int iucv_bus_match(struct device *dev, struct device_driver *drv)
> > -{
> > - return 0;
> ^^^^^^^^
>
> If I'm not wrong then 0 != 1.
>
Seems like an unchecked patch bot, proposed an identical bad patch for
vfio/mdev. Thanks,
Alex