Re: [RFC PATCH 2/7] include/linux: add headers for drivers/zio

Federico Vaga
2011-11-26T21:44:30Z

In data sabato 26 novembre 2011 12:02:16, Greg KH ha scritto:
> On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 06:30:31PM +0100, Alessandro Rubini wrote:
> > +/*
> > + * We use the same functions to deal with attributes, but the structures
> > + * we act on may be different (dev, cset, channel). Thus, all structures
> > + * begin with the type identifier, and zio_obj_head is used in
> > container_of + */
>
> Because you are using container_of, you don't have to have the structure
> at the beginning of the structure it is included in, right?

Different structures have similar features and we use zio_obj_head->zobj_type to
identify the correct container_of to apply. Sometimes we use the head only, so
we delay container_of later.

> > +enum zio_object_type {
> > + ZNONE = 0, /* reserved for non zio object */
> > + ZDEV, ZCSET, ZCHAN,
> > + ZTRIG, ZTI, /* trigger and trigger instance */
> > + ZBUF, ZBI, /* buffer and buffer instance */
> > +};
> > +
> > +/* zio_obj_head is for internal use only, as explained above */
> > +struct zio_obj_head {
> > + struct kobject kobj;
> > + enum zio_object_type zobj_type;
> > + char name[ZIO_NAME_LEN];
> > +};
> > +#define to_zio_head(_kobj) container_of(_kobj, struct zio_obj_head, kobj)
> > +#define to_zio_dev(_kobj) container_of(_kobj, struct zio_device,
> > head.kobj) +#define to_zio_cset(_kobj) container_of(_kobj, struct
> > zio_cset, head.kobj) +#define to_zio_chan(_kobj) container_of(_kobj,
> > struct zio_channel, head.kobj)
> Why are you using a "raw" kobject and not 'struct device' instead?

The device way was experimented and we can move in that direction. I also
tried a mixed solution with device and kobject, because not all the zio objects
can be device.

I decided to use the kobject way because it was an easier and flexible solution
for a fast development.

> If you use a kobject, you loose all of the device tree information that a
> real struct device provides to userspace,

You mean the device sysfs tree? Acctually we don't need that information

> and can only cause confusion in the long run.

I think it can be confusing to declare a device what is not a device, for
example: buffer, trigger, channel-set (maybe in some
sense can be a device) and channel

> This also will provide you the "type" and name that you are needing
> here, as well as lots of other good things (properly formatted logging
> messages, uevents, etc.)

If you refer to device_type, I think it is too complex for our purpose (also
tried during the device "experiment"), we only need to recognize a zio object,
we don't need al the stuff within device_type.

You are right, device is full of great things and the migration to device is
always a point of discussion, but actually kobject meet well with our needs.

> Please consider moving to that instead.

We can re-evaluate and better explain the choice if kobj is still the
preferrable one

> thanks,
>
> greg k-h
--
Federico Vaga