On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 09:09:30AM +0800, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 11 February 2015 at 18:38, Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]> wrote: > > I think its better to be strict; esp. with new interfaces. It avoids > > confusion. > > > > Suppose a driver writer sees these new methods and thinks to use one > > while still having the set_mode() one -- ie. he didn't actually read the > > comment. We'd better make sure he fails and goes back to read it. > > Okay, does below diff looks good to you ? > > diff --git a/kernel/time/clockevents.c b/kernel/time/clockevents.c > index e646fbe44b05..75d221c7e9cc 100644 > --- a/kernel/time/clockevents.c > +++ b/kernel/time/clockevents.c > @@ -444,8 +444,12 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(clockevents_unbind); > static int clockevents_sanity_check(struct clock_event_device *dev) > { > /* Legacy set_mode() callback */ > - if (dev->set_mode) > + if (dev->set_mode) { > + /* We shouldn't be supporting new modes now */ > + WARN_ON(dev->set_mode_periodic || dev->set_mode_oneshot || > + dev->set_mode_shutdown || dev->set_mode_resume); > return 0; > + } > > if (dev->features & CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_DUMMY) > return 0;
Yep, that looks entirely reasonable. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
