On Thu, 2015-09-17 at 13:15 -0400, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, > > On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 09:48:37AM -0700, James Bottomley wrote: > > Well, there's an easy fix for that. We could have ida_remove() actually > > free the bitmap and not cache it if it's the last layer. That way ida > > would naturally empty and we wouldn't need a destructor. Tejun, would > > that work? > > Yeah, that definitely is one way to go about it. It kinda muddles the > purpose of ida_destroy() tho. I suppose we can rename it to > idr_remove_all() and then do the same to idr. I'm not particularly > objecting to all that but what's wrong with just calling idr_destroy() > on exit paths? If missing the call in modules is an issue, maybe we > can just annotate idr/ida with debugobj? The argument is that we shouldn't have to explicitly destroy a statically initialized object, so DEFINE_IDA(someida); Should just work without having to explicitly do ida_destory(someida); somewhere in the exit code. It's about usage patterns. Michael's argument is that if we can't follow the no destructor pattern for DEFINE_IDA() then we shouldn't have it at all, because it's confusing kernel design patterns. The pattern we would have would be struct ida someida: ida_init(&someida); ... ida_destroy(&someida); so the object explicitly has a constructor matched to a destructor. James -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
