On 8/30/22 11:10 AM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 09:42:42AM -0400, Anthony Krowiak wrote:
+/*
+ * Alloc and initialize vfio_device so it can be registered to vfio
+ * core.
+ *
+ * Drivers should use the wrapper vfio_alloc_device() for allocation.
+ * @size is the size of the structure to be allocated, including any
+ * private data used by the driver.
It seems the purpose of the wrapper is to ensure that the object being
allocated has as its first field a struct vfio_device object and to return
its container. Why not just make that a requirement for this function -
which I would rename vfio_alloc_device - and document it in the prologue?
The caller can then cast the return pointer or use container_of.
There are three fairly common patterns for this kind of thing
1) The caller open codes everything:
driver_struct = kzalloc()
core_init(&driver_struct->core)
2) Some 'get priv' / 'get data' is used instead of container_of():
core_struct = core_alloc(sizeof(*driver_struct))
driver_struct = core_get_priv(core_struct)
3) The allocations and initialization are consolidated in the core,
but we continue to use container_of()
driver_struct = core_alloc(typeof(*driver_struct))
#1 has a general drawback that people routinely mess up the lifecycle
model and get really confused about when to do kfree() vs put(),
creating bugs.
#2 has a general drawback of not using container_of() at all, and being
a bit confusing in some cases
#3 has the general drawback of being a bit magical, but solves 1 and
2's problems.
I would not fix the struct layout without the BUILD_BUG_ON because
someone will accidently change the order and that becomes a subtle
runtime error - so at a minimum the wrapper macro has to exist to
check that.
If you want to allow a dynamic struct layout and avoid the pitfall of
exposing the user to kalloc/kfree, then you still need the macro, and
it does some more complicated offset stuff.
Having the wrapper macro be entirely type safe is appealing and
reduces code in the drivers, IMHO. Tell it what type you are initing
and get back init'd memory for that type that you always, always free
with a put operation.
Sounds reasonable, okay I'm buying.
Jason
