On Monday 06 March 2006 13:07, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > Is it more desirable to dynamically allocate kobjects than to declare
> > them statically?
>
> Yes
>
> > If so, I'd be curious to know why dynamic
> > allocation is preferred over static allocation.
>
> because the lifetime of the kobject is independent of the lifetime of
> the memory of your static allocation.
> Separate lifetimes -> separate memory is a very good design principle.
I'm not familiar with the internals of the module unloading code.
However, my understanding of the discussion so far is that the kernel
will refuse to unload a module while any of its kobjects still have
nonzero reference counts (either by waiting for the reference counts
to hit 0 or returning -EBUSY).
If this is the case, then I don't see any harm in declaring kobjects
statically. Declaring a kobject statically is simpler than
dynamically allocating and freeing it. Am I still missing something?
-
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]
