Core already sets .owner in acpi_bus_register_driver().
Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]>
---
drivers/virt/vmgenid.c | 1 -
1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/virt/vmgenid.c b/drivers/virt/vmgenid.c
index b67a28da4702..8f6880c3a87f 100644
--- a/drivers/virt/vmgenid.c
+++ b/drivers/virt/vmgenid.c
@@ -88,7 +88,6 @@ static const struct acpi_device_id vmgenid_ids[] = {
static struct acpi_driver vmgenid_driver = {
.name = "vmgenid",
.ids = vmgenid_ids,
- .owner = THIS_MODULE,
.ops = {
.add = vmgenid_add,
.notify = vmgenid_notify
--
2.34.1
On 26/03/2024 08:53, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> Core already sets .owner in acpi_bus_register_driver().
>
> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/virt/vmgenid.c | 1 -
> 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/virt/vmgenid.c b/drivers/virt/vmgenid.c
> index b67a28da4702..8f6880c3a87f 100644
> --- a/drivers/virt/vmgenid.c
> +++ b/drivers/virt/vmgenid.c
> @@ -88,7 +88,6 @@ static const struct acpi_device_id vmgenid_ids[] = {
> static struct acpi_driver vmgenid_driver = {
> .name = "vmgenid",
> .ids = vmgenid_ids,
> - .owner = THIS_MODULE,
This does not make sense and is not correct. I need to fix
acpi_bus_register_driver first(). Please ignore.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 09:07:52AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 26/03/2024 08:53, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > Core already sets .owner in acpi_bus_register_driver().
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > drivers/virt/vmgenid.c | 1 -
> > 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/virt/vmgenid.c b/drivers/virt/vmgenid.c
> > index b67a28da4702..8f6880c3a87f 100644
> > --- a/drivers/virt/vmgenid.c
> > +++ b/drivers/virt/vmgenid.c
> > @@ -88,7 +88,6 @@ static const struct acpi_device_id vmgenid_ids[] = {
> > static struct acpi_driver vmgenid_driver = {
> > .name = "vmgenid",
> > .ids = vmgenid_ids,
> > - .owner = THIS_MODULE,
>
> This does not make sense and is not correct. I need to fix
> acpi_bus_register_driver first(). Please ignore.
Oh, okay. Does that mean this will resurface as part of a series that is
core fix + individual driver cleanups subsequently?
You made some comment on the other thread indicating that this
meant the driver is "clearly abandoned" because of "all this owner
crap". Wondering if this driver here hits some weird edge case that
isn't covered by changes made "many years ago" or if something else is
up.
Jason
On 26/03/2024 15:17, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 09:07:52AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 26/03/2024 08:53, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>> Core already sets .owner in acpi_bus_register_driver().
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/virt/vmgenid.c | 1 -
>>> 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/virt/vmgenid.c b/drivers/virt/vmgenid.c
>>> index b67a28da4702..8f6880c3a87f 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/virt/vmgenid.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/virt/vmgenid.c
>>> @@ -88,7 +88,6 @@ static const struct acpi_device_id vmgenid_ids[] = {
>>> static struct acpi_driver vmgenid_driver = {
>>> .name = "vmgenid",
>>> .ids = vmgenid_ids,
>>> - .owner = THIS_MODULE,
>>
>> This does not make sense and is not correct. I need to fix
>> acpi_bus_register_driver first(). Please ignore.
>
> Oh, okay. Does that mean this will resurface as part of a series that is
> core fix + individual driver cleanups subsequently?
Yes.
>
> You made some comment on the other thread indicating that this
> meant the driver is "clearly abandoned" because of "all this owner
> crap". Wondering if this driver here hits some weird edge case that
> isn't covered by changes made "many years ago" or if something else is
> up.
No, it was just my mistake. Driver is fine, sorry for too fast judging.
It turns out only some xxx_driver set .owner field. Which I think leads
to actual problems, but that's a bit bigger patchset I need to prepare.
Best regards,
Krzysztof