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]

Message-ID: <51BB22D1.9070204@gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 14 Jun 2013 22:04:01 +0800
From:	Jiang Liu <liuj97@...il.com>
To:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
CC:	Jiang Liu <jiang.liu@...wei.com>,
	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>, 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 06/14/2013 02:26 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> 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?
Now dock driver could only be built as built-in, and it doesn't really
bind to ACPI dock devices, so I think the device ids are not used any
more. Not sure whether any userspace tool has dependency on 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 for review.

> 
> Thanks,
> Rafael
> 
> 

--
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/