[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <e95534be-6cda-ca82-0ee0-a0a626e871ba@nvidia.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2021 00:10:18 -0700
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>, <digetx@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6] mm: cma: support sysfs
On 3/23/21 11:57 PM, Minchan Kim wrote:
...
>> , how about approximately this:
>>
>> struct cma_kobject_wrapper {
>> struct cma *parent;
>> struct kobject kobj;
>> };
>>
>> struct cma {
>> ...
>> struct cma_kobject_wrapper *cma_kobj_wrapper;
>> };
>>
>>
>> ...thus allowing readers of cma_sysfs.c to read that file more easily.
>
> I agree cma->kobj->kobj is awkward but personally, I don't like the
> naming: cma_kobject_wrapper parent pointer. cma_kobject is alredy
> wrapper so it sounds me redundant and it's not a parent in same
> hierarchy.
>
> Since the kobj->kobj is just one line in the code(I don't imagine
> it could grow up in cma_sysfs in future), I don't think it would
> be a problem. If we really want to make it more clear, maybe?
>
> cma->cma_kobj->kobj
>
> It would be consistent with other variables in cma_sysfs_init.
>
OK, that's at least better than it was.
thanks,
--
John Hubbard
NVIDIA
Powered by blists - more mailing lists