[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YshGSgHiAiu9QwiZ@iweiny-desk3>
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2022 07:59:22 -0700
From: Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
CC: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Alison Schofield <alison.schofield@...el.com>,
Vishal Verma <vishal.l.verma@...el.com>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-cxl@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/3] xarray: Introduce devm_xa_init()
On Fri, Jul 08, 2022 at 03:53:50PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 05, 2022 at 04:21:57PM -0700, ira.weiny@...el.com wrote:
> > The main issue I see with this is defining devm_xa_init() in device.h.
> > This makes sense because a device is required to use the call. However,
> > I'm worried about if users will find the call there vs including it in
> > xarray.h?
>
> Honestly, I don't want users to find it. This only makes sense if you're
> already bought in to the devm cult. I worry people will think that
> they don't need to do anything else; that everything will be magically
> freed for them, and we'll leak the objects pointed to from the xarray.
> I don't even like having xa_destroy() in the API, because of exactly this.
>
Fair enough. Are you ok with the concept though?
Ira
Powered by blists - more mailing lists