From: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@gmail.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Is devm_* broken ?
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 20:05:49 +0300
Message-ID: <3561824.rKlMSGlkdL@avalon>
User-Agent: KMail/4.14.8 (Linux/4.0.5-gentoo; KDE/4.14.8; x86_64; ; )
In-Reply-To: <20150728152225.GA454@mtj.duckdns.org>
References: <1503739.gVWYM3p8QD@avalon> <1643821.fnPPMYQxCt@avalon> <20150728152225.GA454@mtj.duckdns.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1162
Lines: 27

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.

-- 
Regards,

Laurent Pinchart

--
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/