On Tue, Feb 05, 2019 at 04:33:27AM -0800, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 12:08 AM Keith Busch <[email protected]> wrote: > > +/** > > + * struct node_access_nodes - Access class device to hold user visible > > + * relationships to other nodes. > > + * @dev: Device for this memory access class > > + * @list_node: List element in the node's access list > > + * @access: The access class rank > > + */ > > +struct node_access_nodes { > > + struct device dev; > > I'm not sure if the entire struct device is needed here. > > It looks like what you need is the kobject part of it only and you can > use a kobject directly here: > > struct kobject kobj; > > Then, you can register that under the node's kobject using > kobject_init_and_add() and you can create attr groups under a kobject > using sysfs_create_groups(), which is exactly what device_add_groups() > does. > > That would allow you to avoid allocating extra memory to hold the > entire device structure and the extra empty "power" subdirectory added > by device registration would not be there.
This is conflicting with Greg's feedback from the first version of this series: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[email protected]/ Do you still recommend using kobject?
