Message ID | 20240328-module-owner-usb-serial-v1-0-bc46c9ffbf56@linaro.org |
---|---|
Headers | show |
Series | USB: store owner from modules with usb_serial_register_drivers() | expand |
On 28/03/2024 23:05, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > Merging > ======= > All further patches depend on the first patch. > > Description > =========== > This is going to be a bit of a patch-bomb, but with trivial patches, so > I think it is still acceptable. If it is too much, apologies and I will > solve it. > > Modules registering driver with usb_serial_register_drivers() might > forget to set .owner field. > > Solve the problem by moving this task away from the drivers to the core > amba bus code, just like we did for platform_driver in commit > 9447057eaff8 ("platform_device: use a macro instead of > platform_driver_register"). Hi Greg, Any comments on this patchset? I know your patchqueue is usually busy, that's why I did not ping for some time. I just want to know it did not end up in some spam folder. Best regards, Krzysztof
On 03/05/2024 11:46, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 28/03/2024 23:05, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> Merging >> ======= >> All further patches depend on the first patch. >> >> Description >> =========== >> This is going to be a bit of a patch-bomb, but with trivial patches, so >> I think it is still acceptable. If it is too much, apologies and I will >> solve it. >> >> Modules registering driver with usb_serial_register_drivers() might >> forget to set .owner field. >> >> Solve the problem by moving this task away from the drivers to the core >> amba bus code, just like we did for platform_driver in commit >> 9447057eaff8 ("platform_device: use a macro instead of >> platform_driver_register"). > > Hi Greg, > > Any comments on this patchset? I know your patchqueue is usually busy, > that's why I did not ping for some time. I just want to know it did not > end up in some spam folder. Never mind, I missed Johan's response. Best regards, Krzysztof
On 15/04/2024 10:54, Johan Hovold wrote: > On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 11:05:38PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> Merging >> ======= >> All further patches depend on the first patch. >> >> Description >> =========== >> This is going to be a bit of a patch-bomb, but with trivial patches, so >> I think it is still acceptable. If it is too much, apologies and I will >> solve it. > > No, sending 51 trivial one-line cleanup patches like this is not > acceptable. > > This is just one logical change so squash them all into one patch for > the entire subsystem (i.e. this series should contain two patches). > Sure. This is not exactly one logical change, but two, because the first patch might fix some drivers which forgot to set the owner (even if I did not identify them). Best regards, Krzysztof
On Fri, May 03, 2024 at 11:49:53AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 15/04/2024 10:54, Johan Hovold wrote: > > No, sending 51 trivial one-line cleanup patches like this is not > > acceptable. > > > > This is just one logical change so squash them all into one patch for > > the entire subsystem (i.e. this series should contain two patches). > > Sure. This is not exactly one logical change, but two, because the first > patch might fix some drivers which forgot to set the owner (even if I > did not identify them). Sorry if this wasn't clear enough, but I was referring to the last 51 one-line patches being one logical change (and hence the series should contain two patches as I mentioned). Johan