On 2/8/21 10:13 PM, Greg KH wrote:
On Mon, Feb 08, 2021 at 05:57:17PM -0800, John Hubbard wrote:
On 2/8/21 3:36 PM, Minchan Kim wrote:
...
char name[CMA_MAX_NAME];
+#ifdef CONFIG_CMA_SYSFS
+ struct cma_stat *stat;
This should not be a pointer. By making it a pointer, you've added a bunch of pointless
extra code to the implementation.
Originally, I went with the object lifetime with struct cma as you
suggested to make code simple. However, Greg KH wanted to have
release for kobj_type since it is consistent with other kboject
handling.
Are you talking about the kobj in your new struct cma_stat? That seems
like circular logic if so. I'm guessing Greg just wanted kobj methods
to be used *if* you are dealing with kobjects. That's a narrower point.
I can't imagine that he would have insisted on having additional
allocations just so that kobj freeing methods could be used. :)
Um, yes, I was :)
You can not add a kobject to a structure and then somehow think you can
just ignore the reference counting issues involved. If a kobject is
part of a structure then the kobject is responsible for controling the
lifespan of the memory, nothing else can be.
So by making the kobject dynamic, you properly handle that memory
lifespan of the object, instead of having to worry about the lifespan of
the larger object (which the original patch was not doing.)
Does that make sense?
That part makes sense, yes, thanks. The part that I'm trying to straighten
out is, why was kobject even added to the struct cma_stat in the first
place? Why not just leave .stat as a static member variable, without
a kobject in it, and done?
thanks,
--
John Hubbard
NVIDIA
