On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 09:55:22PM +0800, Xie Yongji wrote:
> It's not recommended to provide an "empty" release function
> for the device object as Documentation/core-api/kobject.rst
> mentioned.
"it is a bug to have an empty release function" is more like it :)
> So let's allocate the device object dynamically
> to get rid of it.
Much better, but not quite there, see below for details.
>
> Signed-off-by: Xie Yongji <xieyongji@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/vdpa/vdpa_user/vduse_dev.c | 43 +++++++++++++++++-------------
> 1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/vdpa/vdpa_user/vduse_dev.c b/drivers/vdpa/vdpa_user/vduse_dev.c
> index 160e40d03084..a8a5ebaefa10 100644
> --- a/drivers/vdpa/vdpa_user/vduse_dev.c
> +++ b/drivers/vdpa/vdpa_user/vduse_dev.c
> @@ -1475,15 +1475,6 @@ static char *vduse_devnode(struct device *dev, umode_t *mode)
> return kasprintf(GFP_KERNEL, "vduse/%s", dev_name(dev));
> }
>
> -static void vduse_mgmtdev_release(struct device *dev)
> -{
> -}
> -
> -static struct device vduse_mgmtdev = {
> - .init_name = "vduse",
> - .release = vduse_mgmtdev_release,
> -};
> -
> static struct vdpa_mgmt_dev mgmt_dev;
Close. This should be a pointer and the device structure within it
should control the lifecycle of that structure. It should not be a
single static structure like this, that's very odd.
thanks,
greg k-h
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
