[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6691f94a-030a-4c76-8a1b-602620102a01@icloud.com>
Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2024 15:11:05 +0800
From: Zijun Hu <zijun_hu@...oud.com>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
Jonathan Cameron <jonathan.cameron@...wei.com>,
Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@...el.com>,
Alison Schofield <alison.schofield@...el.com>,
Vishal Verma <vishal.l.verma@...el.com>, Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Takashi Sakamoto <o-takashi@...amocchi.jp>, Timur Tabi <timur@...nel.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-cxl@...r.kernel.org,
linux1394-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Zijun Hu <quic_zijuhu@...cinc.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] net: qcom/emac: Prevent device_find_child() from
modifying caller's match data
On 2024/8/24 11:29, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 15, 2024 at 10:58:05PM +0800, Zijun Hu wrote:
>> From: Zijun Hu <quic_zijuhu@...cinc.com>
>>
>> To prepare for constifying the following old driver core API:
>>
>> struct device *device_find_child(struct device *dev, void *data,
>> int (*match)(struct device *dev, void *data));
>> to new:
>> struct device *device_find_child(struct device *dev, const void *data,
>> int (*match)(struct device *dev, const void *data));
>>
>> The new API does not allow its match function (*match)() to modify
>> caller's match data @*data, but emac_sgmii_acpi_match() as the old
>> API's match function indeed modifies relevant match data, so it is not
>> suitable for the new API any more, fixed by implementing a equivalent
>> emac_device_find_child() instead of the old API usage.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Zijun Hu <quic_zijuhu@...cinc.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/net/ethernet/qualcomm/emac/emac-sgmii.c | 36 +++++++++++++++++++++++--
>> 1 file changed, 34 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> Can you rewrite this based on the cxl change to make it a bit more less
> of a "wrap the logic in yet another layer" type of change like this one
> is?
>
sure. will do it today.
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists