[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2024082415-platform-shriek-2810@gregkh>
Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2024 11:29:50 +0800
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Zijun Hu <zijun_hu@...oud.com>
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 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?
thanks,
greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists