Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Fri, 8 Jul 2022 15:53:50 +0100
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
To:     ira.weiny@intel.com
Cc:     Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
        Alison Schofield <alison.schofield@intel.com>,
        Vishal Verma <vishal.l.verma@intel.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-cxl@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/3] xarray: Introduce devm_xa_init()
Message-ID: <YshE/pwSUBPAeybU@casper.infradead.org>
References: <20220705232159.2218958-1-ira.weiny@intel.com>
 <20220705232159.2218958-2-ira.weiny@intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20220705232159.2218958-2-ira.weiny@intel.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jul 05, 2022 at 04:21:57PM -0700, ira.weiny@intel.com wrote:
> The main issue I see with this is defining devm_xa_init() in device.h.
> This makes sense because a device is required to use the call.  However,
> I'm worried about if users will find the call there vs including it in
> xarray.h?

Honestly, I don't want users to find it.  This only makes sense if you're
already bought in to the devm cult.  I worry people will think that
they don't need to do anything else; that everything will be magically
freed for them, and we'll leak the objects pointed to from the xarray.
I don't even like having xa_destroy() in the API, because of exactly this.