On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 5:29 PM Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hello, > > On Wed, Sep 04, 2019 at 10:54:34AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > Anyway, I don't think reusing the drm_minor registration makes sense, > > since we want to be on the drm_device, not on the minor. Which is a bit > > awkward for cgroups, which wants to identify devices using major.minor > > pairs. But I guess drm is the first subsystem where 1 device can be > > exposed through multiple minors ... > > > > Tejun, any suggestions on this? > > I'm not extremely attached to maj:min. It's nice in that it'd be > consistent with blkcg but it already isn't the nicest of identifiers > for block devices. If using maj:min is reasonably straight forward > for gpus even if not perfect, I'd prefer going with maj:min. > Otherwise, please feel free to use the ID best for GPUs - hopefully > something which is easy to understand, consistent with IDs used > elsewhere and easy to build tooling around. Block devices are a great example I think. How do you handle the partitions on that? For drm we also have a main minor interface, and then the render-only interface on drivers that support it. So if blkcg handles that by only exposing the primary maj:min pair, I think we can go with that and it's all nicely consistent. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch
