On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 02:45:16PM -0800, Greg KH wrote: > On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 02:15:40PM -0700, Grant Likely wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 10:07:05PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > > I understand that it could be simplified by removing redundant code > > > > (as Grant Likely had suggested before), and moving it to completion > > > > interface instead of manipulating a task structure directly, but > > > > this doesn't mean that the whole GPIO code has to be rewritten just > > > > to add one functionality. > > > > > > It's not about rewriting, it's about fixing the problem in the right > > > way and not just hacking around it. > > > > > > If we see a shortcoming like this, we fix it and do not magically work > > > around it. > > > > +1 > > > > Thomas is right. kobject reference counting is the correct solution. > > Nack on this approach. > > Only use a kobject if you want to be in the sysfs hierarchy (which I > don't think you want to do here.) If you want proper reference > counting, use a 'struct kref' instead. > This is actually an interesting problem. The gpiolib code presently has its own hand-rolled sysfs support, which is entirely optional. If someone is going to go through and do some refactoring anyways it would be worthwile to see how much tidying up using a kobject would permit. kobject-based refcounting could in effect be used like kref-refcounting with the sysfs interface disabled, too. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
