linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next] net: phy: Cleanup struct mdio_driver

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: <52ea5dbf-2d60-7a23-e525-9dcae2809554@linux.dev>
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2024 19:38:04 +0800
From: Yajun Deng <yajun.deng@...ux.dev>
To: "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@...linux.org.uk>
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org,
 pabeni@...hat.com, andrew@...n.ch, olteanv@...il.com, hkallweit1@...il.com,
 kabel@...nel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-phy@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net: phy: Cleanup struct mdio_driver_common


On 2024/1/3 18:51, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 03, 2024 at 10:03:14AM +0800, Yajun Deng wrote:
>> On 2024/1/3 01:34, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
>>> I'm not sure why this consistency is even desired, the commit message
>>> doesn't properly say _why_ this change is being proposed.
>> Most drivers use device_driver directly. This should be added to the commit.
>>
>> Like this:
>>
>> struct sdio_driver {
>>
>> ... ...
>>
>>          struct device_driver drv;
>> };
>>
>>
>> struct pcie_port_service_driver {
>>
>> ... ...
>>
>>          struct device_driver driver;
>> };
>>
>> and so on ...
> ... which is fine for those other drivers because they don't share the
> same bus. That is not the case here - we have two different classes
> of drivers on the same bus.


Yes, that's true. But we can implement it with is_phy_driver(). I don't 
think we need a flag for that.

>
> I don't like a justification that just because other subsystems do
> something in one particular way, that is the only way things should be
> done. I think there is good reason to have the structure we have, and
> thus there needs to be a good reason to change it.

Its purpose is to clean up struct mdio_driver_common, and make the code 
cleaner.


> Maybe Andrew has a different opinion, but I think we need a better
> justification for this change.
>