[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <DFNL334CM540.32WA2HUXF185J@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2026 16:58:10 +0100
From: "Danilo Krummrich" <dakr@...nel.org>
To: "Gui-Dong Han" <hanguidong02@...il.com>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>, <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <baijiaju1990@...il.com>, "Qiu-ji Chen"
<chenqiuji666@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] driver core: enforce device_lock for
driver_match_device()
On Tue Jan 13, 2026 at 4:55 PM CET, Gui-Dong Han wrote:
> The three call sites for driver_match_device() have been stable for
> over a decade. With only two sites requiring the lock, and no new
> callers anticipated, adding a helper function seems to have limited
> value.
On the other hand, driver_match_device() and driver_match_device_locked() makes
things very clear. :)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists