[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <10fb1261-f22f-8e21-4056-166c283e26f2@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2022 04:34:20 +0200
From: Mika Penttilä <mpenttil@...hat.com>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
apopple@...dia.com, jhubbard@...dia.com, rcampbell@...dia.com,
vbabka@...e.cz
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mm/hmm/test: simplify hmm test code: use miscdevice
instead of char dev
On 17.3.2022 16.15, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 17, 2022 at 08:58:52AM +0200, Mika Penttilä wrote:
>> @@ -1225,7 +1232,11 @@ static int dmirror_device_init(struct dmirror_device
>> *mdevice, int id)
>>
>> cdev_init(&mdevice->cdevice, &dmirror_fops);
>> mdevice->cdevice.owner = THIS_MODULE;
>> - ret = cdev_add(&mdevice->cdevice, dev, 1);
>> + device_initialize(&mdevice->device);
>> + dev_set_name(&mdevice->device, "%s", dmirror_device_names[id]);
>> + mdevice->device.devt = dev;
>> +
>> + ret = cdev_device_add(&mdevice->cdevice, &mdevice->device);
>> if (ret)
>> return ret;
>
> Right, miscdev isn't that helpful in the end..
>
> Jason
>
To wrap up, I could send a v3 formal patch with either this cdev way or
the miscdev way.. Both eliminate the user space /proc/devices parsing
and mknod'ing. Jason brought up concerns using miscdevice like this,
although for this case it works correctly. miscdevice also provides a
little more cleanup and simpler code, but the difference is not huge. So
what do people prefer?
Thanks,
Mika
Powered by blists - more mailing lists