On Sat, Feb 11, 2017 at 10:43 AM, Logan Gunthorpe <log...@deltatee.com> wrote: > > On 11/02/17 11:27 AM, Dan Williams wrote: >> Why, when the lifetime of the cdev is already correct? > > Well, it's only correct if you use the kobj parent trick which Greg is > arguing against. As someone reviewing/copying code that trick is > unclear, undocumented and it looks rather odd messing with internal > kobjects. Taking the explicit reference would be very clear, very > standard and only net one additional line. > >> See commit ba09c01d2fa8 "dax: convert to the cdev api". I used to take >> explicit references like you suggest, but cdev made it cleaner. > > I agree that, on the whole, that patch makes things a good deal cleaner. > I'm not so sure that this one small aspect is an improvement. > > In any case, it's up to you. If you'd like I can certainly submit a v2 > patch that adds the get/put.
Can we meet in the middle and just add some comments about what is going on? It's a shame to add reference counts for something that is already properly reference counted.