[PATCH v2 10/45] drivers: tty: serial: zs: use devm_* functions
gregkh at linuxfoundation.org
Sun Mar 17 20:54:35 AEDT 2019
On Sat, Mar 16, 2019 at 10:17:11AM +0100, Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult wrote:
> On 16.03.19 04:26, Greg KH wrote:
> > No, it's just that those systems do not allow those devices to be
> > removed because they are probably not on a removable bus.
> Ok, devices (hw) might not be removable - that also the case for uarts
> builtin some SoCs, or the good old PC w/ 8250. But does that also mean
> that the driver should not be removable ?
No, but 'rmmod' is not a normal operation that anyone ever does in a
working system. It is only for developer's ease-of-use.
> IMHO, even if that's the case, it's still inconsistent. The driver then
> shouldn't support a remove at all (or even builtin only), not just
> incomplete remove.
Cleaning up properly when the module is unloaded is a good idea, but so
far the patches you submitted did not change anything from a logic point
of view. They all just cleaned up memory the same way it was cleaned up
before, so I really do not understand what you are trying to do here.
> >> Okay, I was on a wrong track here - I had the silly idea that it would
> >> make things easier if we'd do it the same way everywhere.
> > "Consistent" is good, and valid, but touching old drivers that have few
> > users is always risky, and you need a solid reason to do so.
> By the way: do we have some people who have those old hw and could test?
> Should we (try to) create some ? Perhaps some "tester" entry in
> MAINTAINERS file ? (I could ask around several people who might have
> lots of old / rare hardware.)
Let's not clutter up MAINTAINERS with anything else please.
> >> Understood. Assuming I've found some of these cases, shall I use devm
> >> oder just add the missing release ?
> > If it actually makes the code "simpler" or "more obvious", sure, that's
> > fine. But churn for churns sake is not ok.
> > I put the review of new patch submissions on hold, yes. Almost all
> > maintainers do that as we can not add new patches to our trees at that
> > point in time.
> hmm, looks like a pipeline stall ;-)
> why not collecting in a separate branch, which later gets rebased to
> mainline when rc is out ?
I do do that for subsystems that actually have a high patch rate. The
tty/serial subsystem is not such a thing, and it can handle 2 weeks of
delay just fine.
> > And I do have other things I do during that period so it's not like I'm
> > just sitting around doing nothing :)
> So it's also a fixed schedule for your other work. Understood.
> It seems that this workflow can confuse people. Few days ago, somebody
> became nervous about missing reactions on patches. Your autoresponder
> worked for me, but maybe not for everybody.
Why would it not work for everybody? Kernel development has been done
in this manner for over a decade. Having a 2 week window like this is
good for the maintainers, remember they are the most limited resource we
have, not developers.
More information about the Linuxppc-dev