On 3/23/21 11:57 PM, Minchan Kim wrote: ...
, how about approximately this: struct cma_kobject_wrapper { struct cma *parent; struct kobject kobj; }; struct cma { ... struct cma_kobject_wrapper *cma_kobj_wrapper; }; ...thus allowing readers of cma_sysfs.c to read that file more easily.I agree cma->kobj->kobj is awkward but personally, I don't like the naming: cma_kobject_wrapper parent pointer. cma_kobject is alredy wrapper so it sounds me redundant and it's not a parent in same hierarchy. Since the kobj->kobj is just one line in the code(I don't imagine it could grow up in cma_sysfs in future), I don't think it would be a problem. If we really want to make it more clear, maybe? cma->cma_kobj->kobj It would be consistent with other variables in cma_sysfs_init.
OK, that's at least better than it was. thanks, -- John Hubbard NVIDIA
