linux-kernel - Re: [BUGFIX 3/9] ACPI, DOCK: clean up unused module related code

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]

Date:	Thu, 13 Jun 2013 20:26:10 +0200
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To:	Jiang Liu <jiang.liu@...wei.com>
Cc:	Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
	Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>,
	"Alexander E . Patrakov" <patrakov@...il.com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Yijing Wang <wangyijing@...wei.com>,
	Jiang Liu <liuj97@...il.com>, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@...el.com>,
	Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [BUGFIX 3/9] ACPI, DOCK: clean up unused module related code

On Friday, June 14, 2013 12:32:26 AM Jiang Liu wrote:
> ACPI dock driver can't be built as a module any more, so clean up
> module related code.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jiang Liu <jiang.liu@...wei.com>
> Cc: Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@...el.com>
> Cc: Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>
> Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
> Cc: linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org
> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org

How exactly does this depend on [2/9]?  If it doesn't at all, it should go
after [1/9].

> ---
>  drivers/acpi/dock.c | 41 -----------------------------------------
>  1 file changed, 41 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/dock.c b/drivers/acpi/dock.c
> index 79c8d9e..50e38b7 100644
> --- a/drivers/acpi/dock.c
> +++ b/drivers/acpi/dock.c
> @@ -53,12 +53,6 @@ MODULE_PARM_DESC(immediate_undock, "1 (default) will cause the driver to "
>  
>  static struct atomic_notifier_head dock_notifier_list;
>  
> -static const struct acpi_device_id dock_device_ids[] = {
> -	{"LNXDOCK", 0},
> -	{"", 0},
> -};
> -MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(acpi, dock_device_ids);
> -

Don't we actually need the device IDs?

>  struct dock_station {
>  	acpi_handle handle;
>  	unsigned long last_dock_time;
> @@ -1013,30 +1007,6 @@ err_unregister:
>  }
>  
>  /**
> - * dock_remove - free up resources related to the dock station
> - */
> -static int dock_remove(struct dock_station *ds)
> -{
> -	struct dock_dependent_device *dd, *tmp;
> -	struct platform_device *dock_device = ds->dock_device;
> -
> -	if (!dock_station_count)
> -		return 0;
> -
> -	/* remove dependent devices */
> -	list_for_each_entry_safe(dd, tmp, &ds->dependent_devices, list)
> -		kfree(dd);
> -
> -	list_del(&ds->sibling);
> -
> -	/* cleanup sysfs */
> -	sysfs_remove_group(&dock_device->dev.kobj, &dock_attribute_group);
> -	platform_device_unregister(dock_device);
> -
> -	return 0;
> -}
> -
> -/**
>   * find_dock_and_bay - look for dock stations and bays
>   * @handle: acpi handle of a device
>   * @lvl: unused
> @@ -1073,14 +1043,3 @@ int __init acpi_dock_init(void)
>  		ACPI_DOCK_DRIVER_DESCRIPTION, dock_station_count);
>  	return 0;
>  }
> -
> -static void __exit dock_exit(void)
> -{
> -	struct dock_station *tmp, *dock_station;
> -
> -	unregister_acpi_bus_notifier(&dock_acpi_notifier);
> -	list_for_each_entry_safe(dock_station, tmp, &dock_stations, sibling)
> -		dock_remove(dock_station);
> -}
> -
> -module_exit(dock_exit);

The other changes look OK to me.

Thanks,
Rafael


-- 
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/