On 2/9/21 11:26 PM, Greg KH wrote:
...
I just am not especially happy about the inability to do natural, efficient
things here, such as use a statically allocated set of things with sysfs. And
I remain convinced that the above is not "improper"; it's a reasonable
step, given the limitations of
On Tue, Feb 09, 2021 at 11:16:07PM -0800, John Hubbard wrote:
> On 2/9/21 11:12 PM, Minchan Kim wrote:
> ...
> > > > Agreed. How about this for the warning part?
> > > >
> > > > +
> > > > +/*
> > > > + * note: kobj_type should provide a release function to free
> > > > dynamically
> > > > + *
On 2/9/21 11:12 PM, Minchan Kim wrote:
...
Agreed. How about this for the warning part?
+
+/*
+ * note: kobj_type should provide a release function to free dynamically
+ * allocated object since kobject is responsible for controlling lifespan
+ * of the object. However, cma_area is static
On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 07:43:37AM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 09, 2021 at 01:13:17PM -0800, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 09, 2021 at 12:11:20PM -0800, John Hubbard wrote:
> > > On 2/9/21 9:49 AM, Greg KH wrote:
> > > > > > That's fine if you want to add it to the parent. If so,
On Tue, Feb 09, 2021 at 01:13:17PM -0800, Minchan Kim wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 09, 2021 at 12:11:20PM -0800, John Hubbard wrote:
> > On 2/9/21 9:49 AM, Greg KH wrote:
> > > > > That's fine if you want to add it to the parent. If so, then the
> > > > > kobject controls the lifetime of the structure,
On Tue, Feb 09, 2021 at 12:11:20PM -0800, John Hubbard wrote:
> On 2/9/21 9:49 AM, Greg KH wrote:
> > > > That's fine if you want to add it to the parent. If so, then the
> > > > kobject controls the lifetime of the structure, nothing else can.
> > >
> > > The problem was parent object(i.e.,
On 2/9/21 9:49 AM, Greg KH wrote:
That's fine if you want to add it to the parent. If so, then the
kobject controls the lifetime of the structure, nothing else can.
The problem was parent object(i.e., struct cma cma_areas) is
static arrary so kobj->release function will be NULL or just
dummy.
On Tue, Feb 09, 2021 at 07:55:59AM -0800, Minchan Kim wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 09, 2021 at 07:56:30AM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 08, 2021 at 10:34:51PM -0800, John Hubbard wrote:
> > > On 2/8/21 10:27 PM, John Hubbard wrote:
> > > > On 2/8/21 10:13 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, Feb
On Tue, Feb 09, 2021 at 07:56:30AM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 08, 2021 at 10:34:51PM -0800, John Hubbard wrote:
> > On 2/8/21 10:27 PM, John Hubbard wrote:
> > > On 2/8/21 10:13 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Feb 08, 2021 at 05:57:17PM -0800, John Hubbard wrote:
> > > > > On 2/8/21
On Mon, Feb 08, 2021 at 10:34:51PM -0800, John Hubbard wrote:
> On 2/8/21 10:27 PM, John Hubbard wrote:
> > On 2/8/21 10:13 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> > > On Mon, Feb 08, 2021 at 05:57:17PM -0800, John Hubbard wrote:
> > > > On 2/8/21 3:36 PM, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > > > ...
> > > > > > > char
On 2/8/21 10:27 PM, John Hubbard wrote:
On 2/8/21 10:13 PM, Greg KH wrote:
On Mon, Feb 08, 2021 at 05:57:17PM -0800, John Hubbard wrote:
On 2/8/21 3:36 PM, Minchan Kim wrote:
...
char name[CMA_MAX_NAME];
+#ifdef CONFIG_CMA_SYSFS
+ struct cma_stat *stat;
This should not be a
On 2/8/21 10:13 PM, Greg KH wrote:
On Mon, Feb 08, 2021 at 05:57:17PM -0800, John Hubbard wrote:
On 2/8/21 3:36 PM, Minchan Kim wrote:
...
char name[CMA_MAX_NAME];
+#ifdef CONFIG_CMA_SYSFS
+ struct cma_stat *stat;
This should not be a pointer. By making it a pointer, you've
On Mon, Feb 08, 2021 at 05:57:17PM -0800, John Hubbard wrote:
> On 2/8/21 3:36 PM, Minchan Kim wrote:
> ...
> > > > char name[CMA_MAX_NAME];
> > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_CMA_SYSFS
> > > > + struct cma_stat *stat;
> > >
> > > This should not be a pointer. By making it a pointer, you've
On 2/8/21 9:18 PM, John Hubbard wrote:
On 2/8/21 8:19 PM, Minchan Kim wrote:
On Mon, Feb 08, 2021 at 05:57:17PM -0800, John Hubbard wrote:
On 2/8/21 3:36 PM, Minchan Kim wrote:
...
char name[CMA_MAX_NAME];
+#ifdef CONFIG_CMA_SYSFS
+ struct cma_stat *stat;
This should not be a
On 2/8/21 8:19 PM, Minchan Kim wrote:
On Mon, Feb 08, 2021 at 05:57:17PM -0800, John Hubbard wrote:
On 2/8/21 3:36 PM, Minchan Kim wrote:
...
char name[CMA_MAX_NAME];
+#ifdef CONFIG_CMA_SYSFS
+ struct cma_stat *stat;
This should not be a pointer. By making it a pointer, you've
On Mon, Feb 08, 2021 at 05:57:17PM -0800, John Hubbard wrote:
> On 2/8/21 3:36 PM, Minchan Kim wrote:
> ...
> > > > char name[CMA_MAX_NAME];
> > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_CMA_SYSFS
> > > > + struct cma_stat *stat;
> > >
> > > This should not be a pointer. By making it a pointer, you've
On 2/8/21 3:36 PM, Minchan Kim wrote:
...
char name[CMA_MAX_NAME];
+#ifdef CONFIG_CMA_SYSFS
+ struct cma_stat *stat;
This should not be a pointer. By making it a pointer, you've added a bunch of
pointless
extra code to the implementation.
Originally, I went with the object
On Mon, Feb 08, 2021 at 01:34:06PM -0800, John Hubbard wrote:
> On 2/8/21 10:01 AM, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > Since CMA is getting used more widely, it's more important to
> > keep monitoring CMA statistics for system health since it's
> > directly related to user experience.
> >
> > This patch
On 2/8/21 10:01 AM, Minchan Kim wrote:
Since CMA is getting used more widely, it's more important to
keep monitoring CMA statistics for system health since it's
directly related to user experience.
This patch introduces sysfs for the CMA and exposes stats below
to keep monitor for telemetric in
Since CMA is getting used more widely, it's more important to
keep monitoring CMA statistics for system health since it's
directly related to user experience.
This patch introduces sysfs for the CMA and exposes stats below
to keep monitor for telemetric in the system.
* the number of CMA page
20 matches
Mail list logo
