On Wed, Mar 28, 2007 at 01:39:26PM +0800, Shaohua Li wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-03-27 at 22:27 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> >
> > Putting more than one kobject in the same structure is a broken design.
> > How can you control the lifetime rules properly if there are two
> > reference counts for the same structure? It doesn't work.
> >
> > If you really need something like this, then just use a pointer to a
> > kobject for one of them instead of embedding it. Why do you need two
> > different kobjects here?
> Our data structure is something like below:
>
> struct foo {
> kobject kobja;
> }
>
> struct bar {
> struct foo foo[];
Ick, don't do that...
> kobject kobjb
> }
>
> kobjb's .release will free struct bar. kobjb is the parent of kobja. if
> you have a reference on kobja, then kobjb can't be released too, right?
> So we only kobjb provide a .release to free the memory, kobja's .release
> isn't required.
Why not just use the "normal" parent/child relationship with the
kobjects like the rest of the kernel does?
thanks,
greg k-h
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
