linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] hwtracing: Switch back to struct platform

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <b1beee50-2f7d-4f5a-9bb0-20f0659a1240@arm.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2025 10:58:02 +0000
From: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>
To: Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
 Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@...libre.com>
Cc: Mike Leach <mike.leach@...aro.org>, James Clark <james.clark@...aro.org>,
 Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com>,
 Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@...s.st.com>, coresight@...ts.linaro.org,
 linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] hwtracing: Switch back to struct
 platform_driver::remove()

On 11/11/2024 14:47, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
> Hi
> 
> On 11/11/2024 14:12, Alexander Shishkin wrote:
>> Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@...libre.com> writes:
>>
>>> After commit 0edb555a65d1 ("platform: Make platform_driver::remove()
>>> return void") .remove() is (again) the right callback to implement for
>>> platform drivers.
>>>
>>> Convert all platform drivers below drivers/hwtracing to use .remove(),
>>> with the eventual goal to drop struct platform_driver::remove_new(). As
>>> .remove() and .remove_new() have the same prototypes, conversion is done
>>> by just changing the structure member name in the driver initializer.
>>>
>>> Also adapt some whitespace to make indention consistent.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@...libre.com>
>>
>> Acked-by: Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>
>>
>>> ---
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I did a single patch for all of drivers/hwtracing. While I usually
>>> prefer to do one logical change per patch, this seems to be
>>> overengineering here as the individual changes are really trivial and
>>> shouldn't be much in the way for stable backports. But I'll happily
>>> split the patch if you prefer it split. Maybe split for coresight vs.
>>> intel_th? Also if you object the indentation stuff, I can rework that.
>>
>> I'm fine with it as is.
>>
>>> This is based on today's next, if conflicts arise when you apply it at
>>> some later time and don't want to resolve them, feel free to just drop
>>> the changes to the conflicting files. I'll notice and followup at a
>>> later time then. Or ask me for a fixed resend. (Having said that, I
>>> recommend b4 am -3 + git am -3 which should resolve most conflicts just
>>> fine.)
>>
>> Does anybody want to pick this up or should I? I'm fine either way, but
>> if there are any conflicts they won't be from my end of things, so it
>> might make sense to take it via the coresight path.
> 
> I am happy to take them via coresight tree and queue them for v6.14


I see that Linus has queued this already

Suzuki


> 
> Suzuki
> 
>>
>> Thanks,
>> -- 
>> Alex
>