Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751962AbaJJIaT (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Oct 2014 04:30:19 -0400 Received: from mout.kundenserver.de ([212.227.126.187]:54001 "EHLO mout.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751786AbaJJIaP (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Oct 2014 04:30:15 -0400 From: Arnd Bergmann To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Cc: Wolfram Sang , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Greg KH , kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, cocci@systeme.lip6.fr Subject: Re: [RFC] drop owner assignment from platform_drivers Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2014 10:30:08 +0200 Message-ID: <2106140.DbuFLh1xav@wuerfel> User-Agent: KMail/4.11.5 (Linux/3.16.0-10-generic; KDE/4.11.5; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <20141010072439.GA1741@katana> References: <20141010072439.GA1741@katana> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Provags-ID: V02:K0:Y4kIVLXK9p5um1bOKfTdGsMkbn7oOYiwXc7KAItgbfB 6CotV57dwV9j/D9H71F53eq3ibM1h0eB8aymAXR7xMQsRexUVU UcMSjn3BjsrdpY7NQndtGekwm5DPI8paaLi7osJltVUMq4Qeka +9mNrxACLgQt+0MWAZUyel1hmFTG7Z5ieQhWznG3IABkXoYFBu 7LIlU4L5dlGPxmA8wJWQ+oxpS3LRBcj+DjZUwE99KOhm/ZN//u nUSNgxRn0SvKKQhhzmkHPJe4x5U3yHTRPCPtxgXbr19Vs/xWXE /E79TGGw42EtxpxS7kK4WMHBdqhvn6aF2DVhOgvMzp9U4niOae laL8XGRAEkgyuohpEFmI= X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1; Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Friday 10 October 2014 09:24:39 Wolfram Sang wrote: > people found out that for platform_driver, we don't need to set the > .owner field because this is done by the platform driver core. So far, > so good. However, now I got patches removing the .owner field for this > single i2c driver or for that one. To prevent getting thousands of > patches fixing single drivers, I used coccinelle to remove all instances > from the kernel. The SmPL looks like this, it doesn't blindly remove all > THIS_MODULE, but checks if the platform_driver struct was really used by > a call actually setting the .owner field: Is the intention just to save a few lines in the kernel source, or are there any additional upsides to doing this? While it looks like an obvious cleanup, it also seems to me that there is zero effect in terms of functionality, code size or enabling future changes. I'm all for adding your semantic patch to scripts/coccinelle so it gets picked up by anyone writing new drivers or doing code cleanup on their driver, but I'm unsure about the value of applying all your patches for the existing drivers. Arnd -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/