From: Dave Peterson <dsp@llnl.gov>
To: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] EDAC: core EDAC support code
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 19:19:59 -0800
User-Agent: KMail/1.5.3
Cc: Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>, Al Viro <viro@ftp.linux.org.uk>,
       Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
References: <200601190414.k0J4EZCV021775@hera.kernel.org> <200603061301.37923.dsp@llnl.gov> <1141679261.5568.13.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org>
In-Reply-To: <1141679261.5568.13.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200603081919.59763.dsp@llnl.gov>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1195
Lines: 27

On Monday 06 March 2006 13:07, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > Is it more desirable to dynamically allocate kobjects than to declare
> > them statically?
>
> Yes
>
> >  If so, I'd be curious to know why dynamic
> > allocation is preferred over static allocation.
>
> because the lifetime of the kobject is independent of the lifetime of
> the memory of your static allocation.
> Separate lifetimes -> separate memory is a very good design principle.

I'm not familiar with the internals of the module unloading code.
However, my understanding of the discussion so far is that the kernel
will refuse to unload a module while any of its kobjects still have
nonzero reference counts (either by waiting for the reference counts
to hit 0 or returning -EBUSY).

If this is the case, then I don't see any harm in declaring kobjects
statically.  Declaring a kobject statically is simpler than
dynamically allocating and freeing it.  Am I still missing something?
-
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/