linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] PWM: vt8500: Update vt8500 PWM driver support

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20121022120706.GA19467@avionic-0098.mockup.avionic-design.de>
Date:	Mon, 22 Oct 2012 14:07:06 +0200
From:	Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...onic-design.de>
To:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:	Tony Prisk <linux@...sktech.co.nz>, arm@...nel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] PWM: vt8500: Update vt8500 PWM driver support

On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 11:50:21AM +0000, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Monday 22 October 2012, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 07:51:52PM +1300, Tony Prisk wrote:
> > > Replies to your comments inline:
> > > 
> > > On Mon, 2012-10-22 at 08:34 +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > > ...
> > > > > -static int __devinit pwm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > > > > +static const struct of_device_id vt8500_pwm_dt_ids[] = {
> > > > > + { .compatible = "via,vt8500-pwm", },
> > > > > + { /* Sentinel */ }
> > > > > +};
> > > > > +
> > > > > +static int __devinit vt8500_pwm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > > > 
> > > > Since you're changing this line anyway, maybe you should drop __devinit
> > > > (and __devexit for the .remove() callback). HOTPLUG is always enabled
> > > > nowadays and will go away eventually, in which case these will need to
> > > > be removed anyway.
> > > 
> > > Will do. I must say the inconstancy among comments is rather
> > > frustrating. In another patch I sent out a few days ago (completely
> > > unrelated to this), I told to add __devexit to a remove() function :\
> > 
> > This is a rather recent development, so maybe not everyone knows about
> > it yet. You can look at the following commit for the details:
> > 
> >         45f035ab9b8f45aaf1eb2213218b7e9c14af3fc2
> > 
> > It's been in linux-next for about 6 weeks and has also gone into
> > 3.7-rc1.
> 
> As long as we get build warnings for leaving out the __devinit/__devexit
> annotations, I would generally recommend putting them in. If we do a
> patch to remove all of them, a couple extra instances will not cause
> any more troubles than we already have.

I've never seen any build warnings for leaving __devinit/__devexit out.
Where does that happen?

Thierry

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped