[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YCINNpA09FTwr63U@google.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2021 20:19:02 -0800
From: Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
To: John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
surenb@...gle.com, joaodias@...gle.com, willy@...radead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mm: cma: support sysfs
On Mon, Feb 08, 2021 at 05:57:17PM -0800, John Hubbard wrote:
> On 2/8/21 3:36 PM, Minchan Kim wrote:
> ...
> > > > char name[CMA_MAX_NAME];
> > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_CMA_SYSFS
> > > > + struct cma_stat *stat;
> > >
> > > This should not be a pointer. By making it a pointer, you've added a bunch of pointless
> > > extra code to the implementation.
> >
> > Originally, I went with the object lifetime with struct cma as you
> > suggested to make code simple. However, Greg KH wanted to have
> > release for kobj_type since it is consistent with other kboject
> > handling.
>
> Are you talking about the kobj in your new struct cma_stat? That seems
> like circular logic if so. I'm guessing Greg just wanted kobj methods
> to be used *if* you are dealing with kobjects. That's a narrower point.
>
> I can't imagine that he would have insisted on having additional
> allocations just so that kobj freeing methods could be used. :)
I have no objection if Greg agree static kobject is okay in this
case. Greg?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists