| Message ID | 000f01ceef11$a14acf00$e3e06d00$%han@samsung.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Delegated to: | Bjorn Helgaas |
| Headers | show |
On 12/01/2013 07:50 PM, Jingoo Han wrote: > On Monday, December 02, 2013 12:46 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote: >> On 12/01/2013 04:07 PM, Jingoo Han wrote: >>> On Friday, November 29, 2013 10:34 AM, Jingoo Han wrote: >>>> On Thursday, November 28, 2013 3:24 PM, Joe Perches wrote: >>>>> On Wed, 2013-11-27 at 21:53 -0800, 'Greg Kroah-Hartman' wrote: >>>>>> On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 09:40:13PM -0800, Joe Perches wrote: >>>>>>> On Thu, 2013-11-28 at 14:29 +0900, Jingoo Han wrote: >>>>>>>> On Thursday, November 28, 2013 1:08 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 10:55:35AM +0900, Jingoo Han wrote: >>>>>>>>>> This macro is used to create a struct pci_device_id array. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Yeah, and it's a horrid macro that deserves to be removed, please don't >>>>>>>>> use it in more places. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Actually, if you could just remove it, that would be best, sorry, I'm >>>>>>>>> not going to take these patches. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> (+cc Joe Perches, Andrew Morton, Andy Whitcroft) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi Joe Perches, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Would you fix checkpatch.pl about DEFINE_PCI_DEVICE_TABLE? >>>>>>>> Currently, checkpatch.pl guides to use DEFINE_PCI_DEVICE_TABLE >>>>>>>> as below. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> WARNING: Use DEFINE_PCI_DEVICE_TABLE for struct pci_device_id >>>>>>>> #331: FILE: drivers/usb/host/ehci-pci.c:331: >>>>>>>> +static const struct pci_device_id pci_ids [] = { { >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> However, Greg Kroah-Hartman mentioned that DEFINE_PCI_DEVICE_TABLE >>>>>>>> shouldn't be used anymore. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So, would you change checkpatch.pl in order to guide to use >>>>>>>> struct pci_device_id instead of DEFINE_PCI_DEVICE_TABLE? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> For example, >>>>>>>> WARNING: Use struct pci_device_id instead of DEFINE_PCI_DEVICE_TABLE >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The documentation doesn't agree with Greg. >>>>> [] >>>>>> I say just remove it, I should have done that years ago when I was the >>>>>> PCI maintainer, just never got around to it. No other bus has something >>>>>> like this for their device ids, why should PCI be "special"? >>>>> >>>>> Anyone else have an opinion? >>>>> >>>>> I don't care one way or another, but please, one way >>>>> not two. >>>> >> >> Same here. >> >>>> (+cc Bjorn Helgaas, linux-pci) >>>> >>>> Then, how about the following steps? >>>> >>>> 1. Fix ./Documentation/PCI/pci.txt as below. >>>> (Jingoo Han) >>>> The ID table is an array of struct pci_device_id entries ending with an >>>> -all-zero entry; use of the macro DEFINE_PCI_DEVICE_TABLE is the preferred >>>> -method of declaring the table. Each entry consists of: >>>> +all-zero entry; Each entry consists of: >>>> >>>> 2. Fix ./scripts/checkpatch.pl in order to guide to use >>>> struct pci_device_id instead of DEFINE_PCI_DEVICE_TABLE. >>>> (Joe Perches) >>> >>> If all DEFINE_PCI_DEVICE_TABLEs are replaced with 'const struct pci_device_id' >>> and these patches are merged through 'driver-core.git', it will be not >>> necessary to fix ./scripts/checkpatch.pl. >>> >> Why not ? > > I will replace all DEFINE_PCI_DEVICE_TABLEs with 'const struct pci_device_id', > and remove the definition of DEFINE_PCI_DEVICE_TABLE macro. > > --- a/include/linux/pci.h > +++ b/include/linux/pci.h > @@ -631,16 +631,6 @@ struct pci_driver { > #define to_pci_driver(drv) container_of(drv, struct pci_driver, driver) > > /** > - * DEFINE_PCI_DEVICE_TABLE - macro used to describe a pci device table > - * @_table: device table name > - * > - * This macro is used to create a struct pci_device_id array (a device table) > - * in a generic manner. > - */ > -#define DEFINE_PCI_DEVICE_TABLE(_table) \ > - const struct pci_device_id _table[] > - > -/** > > In this case, there is no DEFINE_PCI_DEVICE_TABLE usage > in the kernel. If someone uses DEFINE_PCI_DEVICE_TABLE macro, > it will make build error. > And that will make the checkpatch warning go away ? That seems to be very unlikely. Guenter -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Monday, December 02, 2013 12:56 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On 12/01/2013 07:50 PM, Jingoo Han wrote: > > On Monday, December 02, 2013 12:46 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote: > >> On 12/01/2013 04:07 PM, Jingoo Han wrote: > >>> On Friday, November 29, 2013 10:34 AM, Jingoo Han wrote: > >>>> On Thursday, November 28, 2013 3:24 PM, Joe Perches wrote: > >>>>> On Wed, 2013-11-27 at 21:53 -0800, 'Greg Kroah-Hartman' wrote: > >>>>>> On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 09:40:13PM -0800, Joe Perches wrote: > >>>>>>> On Thu, 2013-11-28 at 14:29 +0900, Jingoo Han wrote: > >>>>>>>> On Thursday, November 28, 2013 1:08 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 10:55:35AM +0900, Jingoo Han wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> This macro is used to create a struct pci_device_id array. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Yeah, and it's a horrid macro that deserves to be removed, please don't > >>>>>>>>> use it in more places. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Actually, if you could just remove it, that would be best, sorry, I'm > >>>>>>>>> not going to take these patches. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> (+cc Joe Perches, Andrew Morton, Andy Whitcroft) > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Hi Joe Perches, > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Would you fix checkpatch.pl about DEFINE_PCI_DEVICE_TABLE? > >>>>>>>> Currently, checkpatch.pl guides to use DEFINE_PCI_DEVICE_TABLE > >>>>>>>> as below. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> WARNING: Use DEFINE_PCI_DEVICE_TABLE for struct pci_device_id > >>>>>>>> #331: FILE: drivers/usb/host/ehci-pci.c:331: > >>>>>>>> +static const struct pci_device_id pci_ids [] = { { > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> However, Greg Kroah-Hartman mentioned that DEFINE_PCI_DEVICE_TABLE > >>>>>>>> shouldn't be used anymore. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> So, would you change checkpatch.pl in order to guide to use > >>>>>>>> struct pci_device_id instead of DEFINE_PCI_DEVICE_TABLE? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> For example, > >>>>>>>> WARNING: Use struct pci_device_id instead of DEFINE_PCI_DEVICE_TABLE > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> The documentation doesn't agree with Greg. > >>>>> [] > >>>>>> I say just remove it, I should have done that years ago when I was the > >>>>>> PCI maintainer, just never got around to it. No other bus has something > >>>>>> like this for their device ids, why should PCI be "special"? > >>>>> > >>>>> Anyone else have an opinion? > >>>>> > >>>>> I don't care one way or another, but please, one way > >>>>> not two. > >>>> > >> > >> Same here. > >> > >>>> (+cc Bjorn Helgaas, linux-pci) > >>>> > >>>> Then, how about the following steps? > >>>> > >>>> 1. Fix ./Documentation/PCI/pci.txt as below. > >>>> (Jingoo Han) > >>>> The ID table is an array of struct pci_device_id entries ending with an > >>>> -all-zero entry; use of the macro DEFINE_PCI_DEVICE_TABLE is the preferred > >>>> -method of declaring the table. Each entry consists of: > >>>> +all-zero entry; Each entry consists of: > >>>> > >>>> 2. Fix ./scripts/checkpatch.pl in order to guide to use > >>>> struct pci_device_id instead of DEFINE_PCI_DEVICE_TABLE. > >>>> (Joe Perches) > >>> > >>> If all DEFINE_PCI_DEVICE_TABLEs are replaced with 'const struct pci_device_id' > >>> and these patches are merged through 'driver-core.git', it will be not > >>> necessary to fix ./scripts/checkpatch.pl. > >>> > >> Why not ? > > > > I will replace all DEFINE_PCI_DEVICE_TABLEs with 'const struct pci_device_id', > > and remove the definition of DEFINE_PCI_DEVICE_TABLE macro. > > > > --- a/include/linux/pci.h > > +++ b/include/linux/pci.h > > @@ -631,16 +631,6 @@ struct pci_driver { > > #define to_pci_driver(drv) container_of(drv, struct pci_driver, driver) > > > > /** > > - * DEFINE_PCI_DEVICE_TABLE - macro used to describe a pci device table > > - * @_table: device table name > > - * > > - * This macro is used to create a struct pci_device_id array (a device table) > > - * in a generic manner. > > - */ > > -#define DEFINE_PCI_DEVICE_TABLE(_table) \ > > - const struct pci_device_id _table[] > > - > > -/** > > > > In this case, there is no DEFINE_PCI_DEVICE_TABLE usage > > in the kernel. If someone uses DEFINE_PCI_DEVICE_TABLE macro, > > it will make build error. > > > > And that will make the checkpatch warning go away ? > That seems to be very unlikely. OK, I will ask Joe Perches to remove the following checkpatch warning. WARNING: Use DEFINE_PCI_DEVICE_TABLE for struct pci_device_id Best regards, Jingoo Han -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
(Adding Jonas Bonn to list as he added the macro in the first place...) On Mon, 2013-12-02 at 13:03 +0900, Jingoo Han wrote: > On Monday, December 02, 2013 12:56 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote: > > On 12/01/2013 07:50 PM, Jingoo Han wrote: > > > On Monday, December 02, 2013 12:46 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote: > > >> On 12/01/2013 04:07 PM, Jingoo Han wrote: > > >>> On Friday, November 29, 2013 10:34 AM, Jingoo Han wrote: > > >>>> On Thursday, November 28, 2013 3:24 PM, Joe Perches wrote: > > >>>>> On Wed, 2013-11-27 at 21:53 -0800, 'Greg Kroah-Hartman' wrote: > > >>>>>> On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 09:40:13PM -0800, Joe Perches wrote: > > >>>>>>> On Thu, 2013-11-28 at 14:29 +0900, Jingoo Han wrote: > > >>>>>>>> On Thursday, November 28, 2013 1:08 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > >>>>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 10:55:35AM +0900, Jingoo Han wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>> This macro is used to create a struct pci_device_id array. > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> Yeah, and it's a horrid macro that deserves to be removed, please don't > > >>>>>>>>> use it in more places. > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> Actually, if you could just remove it, that would be best, sorry, I'm > > >>>>>>>>> not going to take these patches. > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> (+cc Joe Perches, Andrew Morton, Andy Whitcroft) > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> Hi Joe Perches, > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> Would you fix checkpatch.pl about DEFINE_PCI_DEVICE_TABLE? > > >>>>>>>> Currently, checkpatch.pl guides to use DEFINE_PCI_DEVICE_TABLE > > >>>>>>>> as below. > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> WARNING: Use DEFINE_PCI_DEVICE_TABLE for struct pci_device_id > > >>>>>>>> #331: FILE: drivers/usb/host/ehci-pci.c:331: > > >>>>>>>> +static const struct pci_device_id pci_ids [] = { { > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> However, Greg Kroah-Hartman mentioned that DEFINE_PCI_DEVICE_TABLE > > >>>>>>>> shouldn't be used anymore. > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> So, would you change checkpatch.pl in order to guide to use > > >>>>>>>> struct pci_device_id instead of DEFINE_PCI_DEVICE_TABLE? > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> For example, > > >>>>>>>> WARNING: Use struct pci_device_id instead of DEFINE_PCI_DEVICE_TABLE > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> The documentation doesn't agree with Greg. > > >>>>> [] > > >>>>>> I say just remove it, I should have done that years ago when I was the > > >>>>>> PCI maintainer, just never got around to it. No other bus has something > > >>>>>> like this for their device ids, why should PCI be "special"? > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Anyone else have an opinion? > > >>>>> > > >>>>> I don't care one way or another, but please, one way > > >>>>> not two. > > >>>> > > >> > > >> Same here. > > >> > > >>>> (+cc Bjorn Helgaas, linux-pci) > > >>>> > > >>>> Then, how about the following steps? > > >>>> > > >>>> 1. Fix ./Documentation/PCI/pci.txt as below. > > >>>> (Jingoo Han) > > >>>> The ID table is an array of struct pci_device_id entries ending with an > > >>>> -all-zero entry; use of the macro DEFINE_PCI_DEVICE_TABLE is the preferred > > >>>> -method of declaring the table. Each entry consists of: > > >>>> +all-zero entry; Each entry consists of: > > >>>> > > >>>> 2. Fix ./scripts/checkpatch.pl in order to guide to use > > >>>> struct pci_device_id instead of DEFINE_PCI_DEVICE_TABLE. > > >>>> (Joe Perches) > > >>> > > >>> If all DEFINE_PCI_DEVICE_TABLEs are replaced with 'const struct pci_device_id' > > >>> and these patches are merged through 'driver-core.git', it will be not > > >>> necessary to fix ./scripts/checkpatch.pl. > > >>> > > >> Why not ? > > > > > > I will replace all DEFINE_PCI_DEVICE_TABLEs with 'const struct pci_device_id', > > > and remove the definition of DEFINE_PCI_DEVICE_TABLE macro. > > > > > > --- a/include/linux/pci.h > > > +++ b/include/linux/pci.h > > > @@ -631,16 +631,6 @@ struct pci_driver { > > > #define to_pci_driver(drv) container_of(drv, struct pci_driver, driver) > > > > > > /** > > > - * DEFINE_PCI_DEVICE_TABLE - macro used to describe a pci device table > > > - * @_table: device table name > > > - * > > > - * This macro is used to create a struct pci_device_id array (a device table) > > > - * in a generic manner. > > > - */ > > > -#define DEFINE_PCI_DEVICE_TABLE(_table) \ > > > - const struct pci_device_id _table[] > > > - > > > -/** > > > > > > In this case, there is no DEFINE_PCI_DEVICE_TABLE usage > > > in the kernel. If someone uses DEFINE_PCI_DEVICE_TABLE macro, > > > it will make build error. > > > > > > > And that will make the checkpatch warning go away ? > > That seems to be very unlikely. > > OK, I will ask Joe Perches to remove the following checkpatch > warning. > > WARNING: Use DEFINE_PCI_DEVICE_TABLE for struct pci_device_id > > Best regards, > Jingoo Han > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Hi Joe, On 12/02/2013 06:48 AM, Joe Perches wrote: > (Adding Jonas Bonn to list as he added the macro in the first place...) Thanks... ;) Actually, I think I submitted an even uglier macro called DECLARE_PCI_DEVICE_TABLE... might have been the first kernel patch I ever sent? In any case, it should certainly have been kindly rejected. After it hit mainline Andrew Morton just about choked on his tea and renamed it DEFINE_PCI_DEVICE_TABLE. > > On Mon, 2013-12-02 at 13:03 +0900, Jingoo Han wrote: >> On Monday, December 02, 2013 12:56 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote: >>> On 12/01/2013 07:50 PM, Jingoo Han wrote: >>>> On Monday, December 02, 2013 12:46 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote: >>>>> On 12/01/2013 04:07 PM, Jingoo Han wrote: >>>>>> On Friday, November 29, 2013 10:34 AM, Jingoo Han wrote: >>>>>>> On Thursday, November 28, 2013 3:24 PM, Joe Perches wrote: >>>>>>>> On Wed, 2013-11-27 at 21:53 -0800, 'Greg Kroah-Hartman' wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 09:40:13PM -0800, Joe Perches wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2013-11-28 at 14:29 +0900, Jingoo Han wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, November 28, 2013 1:08 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 10:55:35AM +0900, Jingoo Han wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> This macro is used to create a struct pci_device_id array. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, and it's a horrid macro that deserves to be removed, please don't >>>>>>>>>>>> use it in more places. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Actually, if you could just remove it, that would be best, sorry, I'm >>>>>>>>>>>> not going to take these patches. >>>>>>>>>>> Feel free to just remove the macro; it serves no purpose but to confuse. That said, the underlying issue that the macro was supposed to resolve (if I recall correctly) was to make sure that all the struct pci_device_id instances were marked as const, as per the PCI documentation; if there's something checkpatch should be warning for it's simply that the struct is const. /Jonas -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--- a/include/linux/pci.h +++ b/include/linux/pci.h @@ -631,16 +631,6 @@ struct pci_driver { #define to_pci_driver(drv) container_of(drv, struct pci_driver, driver) /** - * DEFINE_PCI_DEVICE_TABLE - macro used to describe a pci device table - * @_table: device table name - * - * This macro is used to create a struct pci_device_id array (a device table) - * in a generic manner. - */ -#define DEFINE_PCI_DEVICE_TABLE(_table) \ - const struct pci_device_id _table[] - -/** In this case, there is no DEFINE_PCI_DEVICE_TABLE usage in the kernel. If someone uses DEFINE_PCI_DEVICE_TABLE macro,