[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <43cd6fc4-5bc5-50ec-0252-ffe09afd68ea@nvidia.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2021 17:57:17 -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 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. :)
thanks,
--
John Hubbard
NVIDIA
Powered by blists - more mailing lists