On Fri Sep 25, 2026 at 3:08 PM CEST, Philipp Stanner wrote: > On Fri, 2026-09-25 at 14:30 +0200, Danilo Krummrich wrote: >> On Fri Sep 25, 2026 at 12:26 PM CEST, Gary Guo wrote: >> > On Fri Sep 25, 2026 at 9:19 AM BST, Philipp Stanner wrote: >> > > Replace the warning print with a dev_warn!(). To do so, have the >> > > FenceContext carry a reference to a Device, protected by the already >> > > present lifetime. >> > >> > Add a lifetime just to do this a print doesn't sound ideal. You could use >> > `ARef<Device>` instead? >> >> Yes, that's what I recommend in general. > > Weren't you super opposed to refcounting wherever it's avoidable?
Well, a device by itself is already reference counted (which is fine). The lifetime constraint does not come from the lifetime of a struct device, it comes from it being bound to a driver for bus devices; for class devices the lifetime constraint comes from the device being registered. I'm opposed to refcount stuff that has a bounded lifetime that is defined by some scope it must not outlive.
