[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <d7c26e15-34f3-26d4-e13a-f24b4a9034c3@deltatee.com>
Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2016 10:20:47 -0700
From: Logan Gunthorpe <logang@...tatee.com>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov@...il.com>,
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>,
Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
Kurt Schwemmer <kurt.schwemmer@...rosemi.com>,
Stephen Bates <stephen.bates@...rosemi.com>,
linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 1/1] MicroSemi Switchtec management interface driver
Hi Greg,
Thanks for the quick review!
On 18/12/16 12:51 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 10:09:22AM -0700, Logan Gunthorpe wrote:
>> +struct switchtec_dev {
>> + struct pci_dev *pdev;
>> + struct msix_entry *msix;
>> + struct device *dev;
>> + struct kref kref;
>
> Why do you have a pointer to a device, yet a kref as well? Just have
> this structure embed a 'struct device' in itself, like you did for a
> kref, and you will be fine. Otherwise you are dealing with two
> different sets of reference counting here, for no good reason.
Ok, understood. I had referenced the device dax driver which did it this
way in 4.8 but looks like it was changed to the way you suggest in 4.9.
>> +#define stdev_pdev(stdev) ((stdev)->pdev)
>> +#define stdev_pdev_dev(stdev) (&stdev_pdev(stdev)->dev)
>> +#define stdev_name(stdev) pci_name(stdev_pdev(stdev))
>> +#define stdev_dev(stdev) ((stdev)->dev)
>
> Ick, just open code these please. That's a huge hint your use of the
> driver model is not correct :)
Ok, will do. For reference, I was copying
drivers/ntb/hw/intel/ntb_hw_intel.h
which does a similar thing.
Logan
Powered by blists - more mailing lists