On Mon, Nov 08, 2010 at 07:38:41AM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Thursday 04 November 2010, Richard Cochran wrote: > > +struct clock_device { > > + struct file_operations fops; > > + struct file_operations *driver_fops; > > + struct clock_device_operations *ops; > > + struct cdev cdev; > > + struct kref kref; > > + struct mutex mux; > > + void *priv; > > + int index; > > + bool zombie; > > +}; > > You should really not need the file_operations here, neither the > struct nor the pointer. Just define a static file_operations > structure containing clock_device_open and clock_device_release, > and whatever else you might need, then add the driver's operations > to clock_device_operations, and pass the clock_device pointer > directly to them, instead of passing the file/inode pointers. Arnd, I'm working a revision of this series, and I am not sure I understand your comment. The intent here was to allow clock drivers to register a character device through the clock_device API, since some clocks (hpet, rtc) already offer a chardev interface. The same FD from the open character device will also be usable as a clockid for the generic posix clock_get/settime calls. Thus, the clock_device layer needs to hook into the file open/release functions. Are you suggesting that I simply offer all of the functions from a 'struct file_operations' (sans file/inode) in the 'struct clock_device_operations' too? I wanted to avoid duplicating the file_operations functions, so that future changes in those functions would automatically trickle down to the clock drivers. Thanks, Richard -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html