Re: [PATCH v4 10/13] platform/x86: uniwill-wmi: use devm_blocking_notifier_chain_register()
Uwe Kleine-König <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | org.kernel.vger.linux-gpio,org.kernel.vger.linux-acpi,org.kernel.vger.linux-iio,org.kernel.vger.linux-input,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel,org.kernel.vger.linux-pwm,org.kernel.vger.platform-driver-x86 |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <aoFcyiofUhsetEiq@monoceros> |
Hello,
On Sun, Aug 16, 2026 at 05:39:47AM +0000, Farber, Eliav wrote:
> > On Sun, Jul 26, 2026 at 10:17:36AM +0000, Eliav Farber wrote:
> > > int devm_uniwill_wmi_register_notifier(struct device *dev, struct
> > > notifier_block *nb) {
> > > - int ret;
> > > -
> > > - ret = blocking_notifier_chain_register(&uniwill_wmi_chain_head, nb);
> > > - if (ret < 0)
> > > - return ret;
> > > -
> > > - return devm_add_action_or_reset(dev, devm_uniwill_wmi_unregister_notifier, nb);
> > > + return devm_blocking_notifier_chain_register(dev,
> > > + &uniwill_wmi_chain_head,
> > > + nb);
> > > }
> >
> > I'd remove this function and replace calls to it directly by devm_blocking_notifier_chain_register().
>
> uniwill_wmi_chain_head is static in uniwill-wmi.c and the caller is in
> uniwill-acpi.c. The wrapper encapsulates access to this module-private
> notifier head - removing it would require exposing the variable through
> the header, which breaks the current abstraction.
>
> I'd prefer to keep the wrapper as-is.
Sounds like a good justification, thanks for considering my suggestion.
Uwe
signature.asc
(application/pgp-signature, 488 B)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAABCgAdFiEEP4GsaTp6HlmJrf7Tj4D7WH0S/k4FAmqBXPEACgkQj4D7WH0S /k5G9QgAiPl0SaJnsb71wiarjshHUxBTQ25ctRmpttPlhvHHEBw0CiKuC69HBhlW x4a5BrRCQa6F8Tu9QxhAfS+3LfmK8Jxxfmk2cYWxruNUqH7u8elLQxzRTq/GlWX4 E8a1chJddKP7vbmFVM3YClG+ilryPCNVS2Xg/b+yIT+VgCRzdQjEgme3k6qagUOR cIw6LAy1xDecauMYWU94PiXkO48m6a46dST1tmxjveaXMv4ZPJW8vCIg50XRQnMI iuFeH4M8+m0g4eZy+4yAaSM7qcevqFFk0fJQFdlOrACDhqFthJIoxF7QFRWrIi4c 4goHTZRM+F+JcMu6mVFcA7UMd9GPOg== =7fHf -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----