| Message ID | 20210205222842.34896-1-uwe@kleine-koenig.org (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | dax-device: Some cleanups | expand |
On Fri, Feb 5, 2021 at 2:29 PM Uwe Kleine-König <uwe@kleine-koenig.org> wrote: > > Hello, > > I didn't get any feedback for the (implicit) v1 of this series that > started with Message-Id: 20210127230124.109522-1-uwe@kleine-koenig.org, > but I identified a few improvements myself: > > - Use "dax-device" consistently as a prefix > - Instead of requiring a .remove callback, make it explicitly > optional. (Drop checking for .remove from former patch 1, introduce > new patch "Properly handle drivers without remove callback") > - The new patch about remove being optional allows to simplify one of > the two dax drivers which is implemented in patch 4 > - Patch 5 got a bit smaller because we now have one driver less with a > remove callback. > - Added Andrew to To: as he merged dax drivers in the past. > > Andrew: Assuming you consider these patches useful, would you please > care for merging them? I've routed device-dax patches through Andrew when they had core-mm entanglements, but a pure device-dax series like this I can take through my tree. One small comment on patch5, otherwise looks good.
On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 7:48 PM Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 5, 2021 at 2:29 PM Uwe Kleine-König <uwe@kleine-koenig.org> wrote: > > > > Hello, > > > > I didn't get any feedback for the (implicit) v1 of this series that > > started with Message-Id: 20210127230124.109522-1-uwe@kleine-koenig.org, > > but I identified a few improvements myself: > > > > - Use "dax-device" consistently as a prefix > > - Instead of requiring a .remove callback, make it explicitly > > optional. (Drop checking for .remove from former patch 1, introduce > > new patch "Properly handle drivers without remove callback") > > - The new patch about remove being optional allows to simplify one of > > the two dax drivers which is implemented in patch 4 > > - Patch 5 got a bit smaller because we now have one driver less with a > > remove callback. > > - Added Andrew to To: as he merged dax drivers in the past. > > > > Andrew: Assuming you consider these patches useful, would you please > > care for merging them? > > I've routed device-dax patches through Andrew when they had core-mm > entanglements, but a pure device-dax series like this I can take > through my tree. > > One small comment on patch5, otherwise looks good. I take it back, patch5 looks good. I was going to ask about the return value removal for dax_bus_remove(), but that would need struct bus_type to change prototypes. All merged to the nvdimm tree.
Hello Dan, On 2/17/21 4:55 AM, Dan Williams wrote: >> One small comment on patch5, otherwise looks good. > > I take it back, patch5 looks good. I was going to ask about the return > value removal for dax_bus_remove(), but that would need struct > bus_type to change prototypes. Changing struct bus_type::remove to return void is the eventual plan. To make this a pretty and easily reviewable patch I currently go through all buses and make sure that for the prototype change I only have to do one s/int/void/ and drop a "return 0" per bus. > All merged to the nvdimm tree. Great, thanks Uwe