Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1200262 > unrolled thread

Re: Is devm_* broken ?

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Is devm_* broken ? Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz> - 2015-08-04 22:00 +0200
    Re: Is devm_* broken ? Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com> - 2015-08-04 23:30 +0200

#1200262 — Re: Is devm_* broken ?

On Tue 2015-07-28 20:05:49, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> On Tuesday 28 July 2015 11:22:25 Tejun Heo wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 05:16:16PM +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > > Using devm_kzalloc() in such a way has value though, and reverting drivers
> > > to the pre-devm memory allocation code would make error handling and
> > > cleanup code paths more complex again. Should we introduce a managed
> > > allocator for that purpose that would have a lifespan explicitly handled
> > > by drivers ?
> >
> > I don't know.  Sure, we can have memory allocations which are tied to
> > open file; however, the distinction between that and regular devm
> > resources, which can't linger on no matter what, would be subtle and
> > confusing.  IMHO, a better approach would be implmenting generic
> > revoke feature and sever open files on driver detach so that
> > everything can be shutdown then.
> 
> Sounds like a topic for the kernel summit :-) I'll send a proposal.

Hmm. But that means that devm_ everything is broken for 6 months or
so, right?

Does it mean we should stop taking new devm_ conversions at the very
least?

									Pavel
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1200284

On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 12:56 PM, Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz> wrote:
> On Tue 2015-07-28 20:05:49, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
>> On Tuesday 28 July 2015 11:22:25 Tejun Heo wrote:
>> > On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 05:16:16PM +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
>> > > Using devm_kzalloc() in such a way has value though, and reverting drivers
>> > > to the pre-devm memory allocation code would make error handling and
>> > > cleanup code paths more complex again. Should we introduce a managed
>> > > allocator for that purpose that would have a lifespan explicitly handled
>> > > by drivers ?
>> >
>> > I don't know.  Sure, we can have memory allocations which are tied to
>> > open file; however, the distinction between that and regular devm
>> > resources, which can't linger on no matter what, would be subtle and
>> > confusing.  IMHO, a better approach would be implmenting generic
>> > revoke feature and sever open files on driver detach so that
>> > everything can be shutdown then.
>>
>> Sounds like a topic for the kernel summit :-) I'll send a proposal.
>
> Hmm. But that means that devm_ everything is broken for 6 months or
> so, right?
>
> Does it mean we should stop taking new devm_ conversions at the very
> least?

No, we should continue carefully review them and take the ones that make sense.

Thanks.

-- 
Dmitry
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web