linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] remoteproc: remove the now-redundant kref

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4FCD272E.1020300@codeaurora.org>
Date:	Mon, 04 Jun 2012 14:22:54 -0700
From:	Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>
To:	Ohad Ben-Cohen <ohad@...ery.com>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-omap@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	Fernando Guzman Lugo <fernando.lugo@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] remoteproc: remove the now-redundant kref

On 05/30/12 05:38, Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote:
> On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 11:42 AM, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org> wrote:
>>> -     /* the rproc will only be released after its refcount drops to zero */
>>> -     kref_put(&rproc->refcount, rproc_release);
>>> +     /* unroll rproc_alloc. TODO: we may want to let the users do that */
>>> +     put_device(&rproc->dev);
>> Yes I think we want rproc_free() to actually call put_device() the last
>> time and free the resources.
> Yeah that was one of the options I considered.
>
> In general, we have three options here:
> 1. Remove this last put_device invocation, and require users to call
> rproc_free() even after they call rproc_unregister().
> 2. Let rproc_unregister() still do this, by calling rproc_free().
> 3. Let rproc_unregister() still do this, by invoking put_device().
>
> I think that (1) looks better since it makes the interface symmetric
> and straight forward.
>
> (2) and (3) may be simper because users only need to call
> rproc_unregister and that's it.
>
> I eventually decided against (1) because I was concerned it will only
> confuse users at this point.
>
> But if you think that (1) is nicer too then maybe we should go ahead
> and do that change.

Option 1 is nicer and it also follows the model other subsystems have
put forth such as the input subsystem.

-- 
Sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum.

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