[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3cf67381-9b5a-56ee-2a8f-047955c84128@nvidia.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2021 21:18:52 -0800
From: John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>
To: Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
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 2/8/21 8:19 PM, Minchan Kim wrote:
> 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?
>
What I meant is, no kobject at all in the struct cma_stat member
variable. The lifetime of the cma_stat member is the same as the
containing struct, so no point in putting a kobject into it.
thanks,
--
John Hubbard
NVIDIA
Powered by blists - more mailing lists