On 2/9/21 11:12 PM, Minchan Kim wrote:
...
Agreed. How about this for the warning part?
+
+/*
+ * note: kobj_type should provide a release function to free dynamically
+ * allocated object since kobject is responsible for controlling lifespan
+ * of the object. However, cma_area is static object so technially, it
+ * doesn't need release function. It's very exceptional case so pleaes
+ * do not follow this model.
+ */
static struct kobj_type cma_ktype = {
.sysfs_ops = &kobj_sysfs_ops,
.default_groups = cma_groups
+ .release = NULL, /* do not follow. See above */
};
No, please no. Just do it the correct way, what is the objection to
creating a few dynamic kobjects from the heap? How many of these are
you going to have that it will somehow be "wasteful"?
Please do it properly.
Oh, I misunderstood your word "don't provide a release function for the
kobject" so thought you agreed on John. If you didn't, we are stuck again:
IIUC, the objection from John was the cma_stat lifetime should be on parent
object, which is reasonable and make code simple.
Frankly speaking, I don't have strong opinion about either approach.
John?
We should do it as Greg requests, now that it's quite clear that he's insisting
on this. Not a big deal.
I just am not especially happy about the inability to do natural, efficient
things here, such as use a statically allocated set of things with sysfs. And
I remain convinced that the above is not "improper"; it's a reasonable
step, given the limitations of the current sysfs design. I just wanted to say
that out loud, as my proposal sinks to the bottom of the trench here. haha :)
thanks,
--
John Hubbard
NVIDIA
