Re: [PATCH 2/2] driver-core: remove the duplicate assignment of kobj->parent in device_add

[BjÃrn Mork]

Wei Yang <weiyang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> kobject_add() will setup the kobject parent correctly.
>
> This patch removes the redundant code.
>
> Signed-off-by: Wei Yang <weiyang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Reviewed-by: Ram Pai <linuxram@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Reviewed-by: Gavin Shan <shangw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  drivers/base/core.c |    4 +---
>  1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/base/core.c b/drivers/base/core.c
> index 369ae4e..6b0a859 100644
> --- a/drivers/base/core.c
> +++ b/drivers/base/core.c
> @@ -1024,8 +1024,6 @@ int device_add(struct device *dev)
>  
>  	parent = get_device(dev->parent);
>  	kobj = get_device_parent(dev, parent);
> -	if (kobj)
> -		dev->kobj.parent = kobj;
>  
>  	/* use parent numa_node */
>  	if (parent)
> @@ -1033,7 +1031,7 @@ int device_add(struct device *dev)
>  
>  	/* first, register with generic layer. */
>  	/* we require the name to be set before, and pass NULL */
> -	error = kobject_add(&dev->kobj, dev->kobj.parent, NULL);
> +	error = kobject_add(&dev->kobj, kobj, NULL);
>  	if (error)
>  		goto Error;


You've submitted this exact same patch before and Greg asked a couple of
questions about it: https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/1/25/599

If this is a resubmission, then it would sure be nice if that was clear
from the subject and on.  And I believe any previously asked questions
should be answered in some way.  I see that you have responded to one of
them by moving part of the commit message to the cover letter, but still
without any answer to the question.

To me this looks like you completely ignored Greg's review questions. Is
that so?



BjÃrn
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/