Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-51435-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.48.161 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.48.161;
Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2024 13:15:35 +0800
From: Xu Yilun <yilun.xu@linux.intel.com>
To: Marco Pagani <marpagan@redhat.com>
Cc: Moritz Fischer <mdf@kernel.org>, Wu Hao <hao.wu@intel.com>,
	Xu Yilun <yilun.xu@intel.com>, Tom Rix <trix@redhat.com>,
	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	Alan Tull <atull@opensource.altera.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-fpga@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v5 1/1] fpga: add an owner and use it to take the
 low-level module's refcount
Message-ID: <Zb8dd9af0Ru/fzGi@yilunxu-OptiPlex-7050>
References: <20240111160242.149265-1-marpagan@redhat.com>
 <20240111160242.149265-2-marpagan@redhat.com>
 <Zbh7iO9wlm9ekzB7@yilunxu-OptiPlex-7050>
 <0720eb91-72f9-4781-8558-8a1b0a3691c2@redhat.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <0720eb91-72f9-4781-8558-8a1b0a3691c2@redhat.com>

On Fri, Feb 02, 2024 at 06:44:01PM +0100, Marco Pagani wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2024-01-30 05:31, Xu Yilun wrote:
> >> +#define fpga_mgr_register_full(parent, info) \
> >> +	__fpga_mgr_register_full(parent, info, THIS_MODULE)
> >>  struct fpga_manager *
> >> -fpga_mgr_register_full(struct device *parent, const struct fpga_manager_info *info);
> >> +__fpga_mgr_register_full(struct device *parent, const struct fpga_manager_info *info,
> >> +			 struct module *owner);
> >>  
> >> +#define fpga_mgr_register(parent, name, mops, priv) \
> >> +	__fpga_mgr_register(parent, name, mops, priv, THIS_MODULE)
> >>  struct fpga_manager *
> >> -fpga_mgr_register(struct device *parent, const char *name,
> >> -		  const struct fpga_manager_ops *mops, void *priv);
> >> +__fpga_mgr_register(struct device *parent, const char *name,
> >> +		    const struct fpga_manager_ops *mops, void *priv, struct module *owner);
> >> +
> >>  void fpga_mgr_unregister(struct fpga_manager *mgr);
> >>  
> >> +#define devm_fpga_mgr_register_full(parent, info) \
> >> +	__devm_fpga_mgr_register_full(parent, info, THIS_MODULE)
> >>  struct fpga_manager *
> >> -devm_fpga_mgr_register_full(struct device *parent, const struct fpga_manager_info *info);
> >> +__devm_fpga_mgr_register_full(struct device *parent, const struct fpga_manager_info *info,
> >> +			      struct module *owner);
> > 
> > Add a line here. I can do it myself if you agree.
> 
> Sure, that is fine by me. I also spotted a typo in the commit log body
> (in taken -> is taken). Do you want me to send a v6, or do you prefer
> to fix that in place?

No need, I can fix it.

> 
> > 
> > There is still a RFC prefix for this patch. Are you ready to get it merged?
> > If yes, Acked-by: Xu Yilun <yilun.xu@intel.com>
> 
> I'm ready for the patch to be merged. However, I recently sent an RFC
> to propose a safer implementation of try_module_get() that would
> simplify the code and may also benefit other subsystems. What do you
> think?
> 
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-modules/20240130193614.49772-1-marpagan@redhat.com/

I suggest take your fix to linux-fpga/for-next now. If your try_module_get()
proposal is applied before the end of this cycle, we could re-evaluate
this patch.

Thanks,
Yilun

> 
> > Next time if you think patches are ready for serious review and merge, drop
> > the RFC prefix. That avoids an extra query.
> 
> Okay, I'll do it like that next time.
> 
> Thanks,
> Marco
>