[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <29924c50-cf96-13bb-ef84-4813caa3aef3@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2023 14:29:05 +0200
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, keescook@...omium.org,
masahiroy@...nel.org, nathan@...nel.org, ndesaulniers@...gle.com,
nicolas@...sle.eu, catalin.marinas@....com, will@...nel.org,
vkoul@...nel.org, trix@...hat.com, ojeda@...nel.org,
mingo@...hat.com, longman@...hat.com, boqun.feng@...il.com,
dennis@...nel.org, tj@...nel.org, cl@...ux.com, acme@...nel.org,
mark.rutland@....com, alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com,
jolsa@...nel.org, namhyung@...nel.org, irogers@...gle.com,
adrian.hunter@...el.com, juri.lelli@...hat.com,
vincent.guittot@...aro.org, dietmar.eggemann@....com,
rostedt@...dmis.org, bsegall@...gle.com, mgorman@...e.de,
bristot@...hat.com, vschneid@...hat.com, paulmck@...nel.org,
frederic@...nel.org, quic_neeraju@...cinc.com,
joel@...lfernandes.org, josh@...htriplett.org,
mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com, jiangshanlai@...il.com,
rientjes@...gle.com, vbabka@...e.cz, roman.gushchin@...ux.dev,
42.hyeyoo@...il.com, apw@...onical.com, joe@...ches.com,
dwaipayanray1@...il.com, lukas.bulwahn@...il.com,
john.johansen@...onical.com, paul@...l-moore.com,
jmorris@...ei.org, serge@...lyn.com, linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dmaengine@...r.kernel.org,
llvm@...ts.linux.dev, linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org,
rcu@...r.kernel.org, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
tglx@...utronix.de, ravi.bangoria@....com, error27@...il.com,
luc.vanoostenryck@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 46/57] perf: Simplify pmu_dev_alloc()
On 6/12/23 14:18, Greg KH wrote:
> Yeah, it's a pain, but you are trying to hand-roll code that is not a
> "normal" path for a struct device, sorry.
>
> I don't know if you really can encode all of that crazy logic in the
> cleanup api, UNLESS you can "switch" the cleanup function at a point in
> time (i.e. after device_add() is successful). Is that possible?
What _could_ make sense is that device_add() completely takes ownership
of the given pointer, and takes care of calling put_device() on failure.
Then you can have
struct device *dev_struct __free(put_device) =
kzalloc(sizeof(struct device), GFP_KERNEL);
struct device *dev __free(device_del) =
device_add(no_free_ptr(dev_struct));
/* dev_struct is NULL now */
pmu->dev = no_free_ptr(dev);
Paolo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists