19.03.2021 22:03, Minchan Kim пишет:
> On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 09:48:11PM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>> 19.03.2021 21:21, Minchan Kim пишет:
>>> On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 08:56:06PM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>>>> 19.03.2021 19:30, Minchan Kim пишет:
>>>>> +static void cma_kobj_release(struct kobject *kobj)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> + struct cma_kobject *cma_kobj = container_of(kobj, struct cma_kobject, kobj);
>>>>> +
>>>>> + kfree(cma_kobj);
>>>>> +}
>>>>
>>>> Oh, wait.. I think this kfree wrong since cma_kobj belongs to the array.
>>>
>>> Oh, good spot. Let me use kzalloc.
>>>
>>
>> Thinking a bit more about this.. it looks like actually it should be
>> better to get back to the older variant of cma_stat, but allocate at the
>> time of CMA initialization, rather than at the time of sysfs
>> initialization. Then the cma_stat will be decoupled from the cma struct
>
> IIRC, the problem was slab was not initiaized at CMA init point.
> That's why I liked your suggestion.
Alright, if CMA init time is a problem, then the recent variant should
be okay.
>> and cma_stat will be a self-contained object.
>
> Yeah, self-contained is better but it's already weird to
> have differnt lifetime for one object since CMA object
> never die, technically.
>
Indeed.
I found the Greg's original argument and not sure that it's really
worthwhile to worry about the copycats since this is not a driver's code..
Maybe we could just add a clarifying comment for the kobj, telling why
it's okay for CMA. Greg, doesn't it sound like a good compromise to you?
