On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 12:56 PM, Pavel Machek <[email protected]> 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 [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
