On 10/14/2010 08:07 PM, ykzhao wrote:
The way you are doing it, there is no need for a refcount, since you are
making a copy of the data.
Is a copy or a pointer better? A pointer is generally preferred, it
keeps from having to either store data on the stack or dynamically
allocate it for the copy. But it's not a huge deal in this case. A
pointer will require you to dynamically allocate the smi_info structure
so you can free it separately. But then only the top-level put routine
is required, it can simply free the structure if the refcount is zero.
When the pointer mechanism is used, we will have to allocate the
smi_info structure dynamically. Every time the function of
ipmi_get_smi_info, it will be allocated dynamically. And if it fails in
the allocation, we can't return the expected value.
Well, you misunderstand. You allocate one copy when the SMI info is
created. And you return a pointer to that with the refcount
incremented. No need to allocate a new one on each call. Use the
refcounts to know when to free it.
But when the copy is used, it will be much simpler. It is the caller's
responsibility to prepare the corresponding data structure. They can
define it on stack. Of course they can also dynamically allocate it.
Can we choose the copy mechanism to make it much simpler?
Sure, I think I already said this :). Just get rid of the refcount stuff.
-corey
--
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
