From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2016 21:22:03 -0500
From: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org>
To: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>
Cc: Tomasz Nowicki <tn@semihalf.com>, arnd@arndb.de,
        will.deacon@arm.com, catalin.marinas@arm.com, rafael@kernel.org,
        hanjun.guo@linaro.org, okaya@codeaurora.org, jchandra@broadcom.com,
        cov@codeaurora.org, dhdang@apm.com, ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org,
        robert.richter@caviumnetworks.com, mw@semihalf.com,
        Liviu.Dudau@arm.com, ddaney@caviumnetworks.com,
        wangyijing@huawei.com, msalter@redhat.com,
        linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        linaro-acpi@lists.linaro.org, jcm@redhat.com,
        andrea.gallo@linaro.org, jeremy.linton@arm.com,
        liudongdong3@huawei.com, gabriele.paoloni@huawei.com,
        jhugo@codeaurora.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH V5 1/5] PCI: Embed pci_ecam_ops in pci_config_window
 structure
Message-ID: <20160905022203.GB30488@localhost>
References: <1470661541-26270-1-git-send-email-tn@semihalf.com>
 <1470661541-26270-2-git-send-email-tn@semihalf.com>
 <20160901182345.GA18461@localhost>
 <20160902153845.GA11234@red-moon>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
In-Reply-To: <20160902153845.GA11234@red-moon>
Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-pci.vger.kernel.org>

On Fri, Sep 02, 2016 at 04:38:45PM +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 01:23:45PM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 08, 2016 at 03:05:37PM +0200, Tomasz Nowicki wrote:
> > > pci_config_window keeps pointer to pci_ecam_ops and every time
> > > we want to deallocate pci_config_window (pci_ecam_free()) we need to make
> > > sure to free pci_ecam_ops in case it was dynamically allocated prior to
> > > pci_ecam_create() call.
> > 
> > I think this is a theoretical problem, right?  All the current callers
> > pass a pointer to a static pci_ecam_ops struct that does not need to
> > be deallocated.
> > 
> > I see that the next patch uses a pci_ecam_ops struct on the stack,
> 
> I asked Tomasz why we need to have pci_ecam_ops on the stack in the
> first place since I do not think it is needed, or nicer (actually I
> think it is not nice at all, what's the problem in making it static ?).

If it's useful to copy the struct instead of saving the pointer, that's
fine.  I just want the changelog to match the diff.

Bjorn