在 2022/5/12 17:40, Greg KH 写道:
On Thu, May 12, 2022 at 05:31:51PM +0800, Yongji Xie wrote:
On Thu, May 12, 2022 at 4:58 PM Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, May 12, 2022 at 03:51:38PM +0800, Yongji Xie wrote:
On Thu, May 12, 2022 at 2:19 PM Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, May 12, 2022 at 01:59:00PM +0800, Yongji Xie wrote:
On Thu, May 12, 2022 at 1:23 PM Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, May 12, 2022 at 01:19:58PM +0800, Yongji Xie wrote:
On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 10:02 PM Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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 :)
OK.
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.
OK, I can define mgmt_dev as a pointer. But the device is defined as a
parent device for structure vdpa_mgmt_dev. So I think we can't use it
to control the lifecycle of the structure vdpa_mgmt_dev.
You should be able to control the lifecycle of it, especially if it is
the parent device of something. To not do that correctly is to have
everything messed up as you should be using the driver model properly.
As it is, you are not :(
I can control the lifecycle of it. What I mean is that I can not free
it in the release function of the device object since it is the parent
device of mgmt_dev. E.g., in other cases (such as ifcvf_probe()), the
device object comes from a pci device but the structure vdpa_mgmt_dev
is created during driver probing. The structure vdpa_mgmt_dev just
maintains a pointer to the device object. So the structure
vdpa_mgmt_dev and the device object have different lifecycles.
Then something is very very wrong here. The structure's lifespace
should only be controlled by one reference count, not multiple ones.
But they are different devices (one is vdpa_mgmt_dev and another is
the device I create which will be the parent of vdpa_mgmt_dev), I
didn't get why we need to control their lifecycle in one reference
count.
Have it be controlled by the device you create and properly register as
a child of the pci device and all should be fine.
The structure vdpa_mgmt_dev is defined as:
/**
* struct vdpa_mgmt_dev - vdpa management device
* @device: Management parent device
* @ops: operations supported by management device
* @id_table: Pointer to device id table of supported ids
* @config_attr_mask: bit mask of attributes of type enum vdpa_attr that
* management device support during dev_add callback
* @list: list entry
*/
struct vdpa_mgmt_dev {
struct device *device;
const struct vdpa_mgmtdev_ops *ops;
const struct virtio_device_id *id_table;
u64 config_attr_mask;
struct list_head list;
};
Now the device I create is passed to the struct vdpa_mgmt_dev as a
parent device pointer. If we want to control the lifecycle of the
structure vdpa_mgmt_dev by the device I create, some logic of the vdpa
management device needs to be reworked. For example, define a device
object for structure vdpa_mgmt_dev rather than just maintaining a
pointer to the parent device.
But this is a device (it says in the name), so it should have the device
structure embedded in it to control the lifespan of it.
Currently it's not a device as Jason mentioned. So I think the
question is whether we need to re-define it or just re-name it.
It is a device, you have a pointer to a device structure that is used by
the code!
Embed it in the structure and you should be fine. Well, maybe, let's
see what falls out from there as it seems like the use of the driver
model is a bit messed up in this codebase. But it's a good first step
forward in fixing things.
Right, things became messed up since the introduction of the mgmt device.
Yong Ji, wand to do the work (or if you wish I can do rework)?
Thanks
thanks,
greg k-h
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
