On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 07:38:52PM -0500, Stefan Berger wrote: > Jason Gunthorpe <[email protected]> wrote on 02/10/2016 > 05:23:13 PM: > > > > > > > > > We shouldn't artificially limit the number of devices if > > > > virtualization is the target. Use an idr, or figure out how to > get rid > > > > of it. Since it is only used here: > > > > > > > > dev_set_name(&vtpm_dev->dev, "vtpms%d", vtpm_dev->dev_num); > > > > > > > > Maybe it could be adjusted to use chip->dev_num instead. > > > > > The chip->dev_num comes back from tpmm_chip_alloc() which is called > > > with the device as a parameter. That's the device we're trying to > > > > Hm, that is only needed for devm, could also do the tpm/tpmm split and > > avoid needing a registered dev. > > > > How about another patch on top of the ones I have so far only solving this > problem ?
IDR has been on my backlog for a long time (over a year now). If you'd create a patch that would migrate the subsystem to that and do also do this split, I could take that patch as an independent contribution and you would have a better baseline to develop on top of. What do you think? /Jarkko ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Site24x7 APM Insight: Get Deep Visibility into Application Performance APM + Mobile APM + RUM: Monitor 3 App instances at just $35/Month Monitor end-to-end web transactions and take corrective actions now Troubleshoot faster and improve end-user experience. Signup Now! http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=272487151&iu=/4140 _______________________________________________ tpmdd-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tpmdd-devel
