On Thu, Mar 16, 2006 at 08:45:10PM +0300, Artem B. Bityutskiy wrote:
>
> Greg KH wrote:
> >Don't statically create kobjects, it's not nice. But the real problem
> >is below...
>
> Well, that was just an example...
>
> But in real life I do use a static kobject in one case, so I'm very
> interested what should I do instead. I have a subsystem, and I want it
> to put all its stuff in a /sys/A directory. So I just define a static
> kobject for A and assign a dummy release function to it. Why is this bad?
If you use decl_subsys(), you should be fine for this. Use that instead
of trying to roll your own subsystem kobjects please. That
infrastructure was written for a reason...
> And what should I do instead? kmalloc(sizeof(struct kobject),
> GFP_KERNEL) ? I do not have a dynamic structure corresponding to my
> module. I have many data structures corresponding to entities my object
> handles and I have one static array which refers them. All is simple. I
> do not want to introduce a dynamic data structure corresponding to the
> subsystem as a whole just in order to not use static kobjects.
Data (kobjects) have a different lifespan than code (modules).
Seperating them is a good idea, and if not, your reference counting
issues can be quite nasty. See the recent EDAC fiasco for a good
example of how easy it is to mess things up in this manner.
thanks,
greg k-h
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
