Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 19 Nov 2008 21:54:50 -0800 | From | Greg KH <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH RESEND] char_dev: add cdev->release() and convert cdev_alloc() to use it |
| |
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 12:58:26AM +0900, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, > > Boaz Harrosh wrote: > > I just saw this thread for the first time and it left me confused. > > What was the final verdict. Is this patch going in at the end? > > Which incarnation of it? is there a public git tree I can try? > > Yes it is and as posted and no there isn't no public git tree yet, I was > planning on pushing it through Miklos' tree. > > > The reason I ask is because I have just the same principal work in one of > > my test trees. What I have is a Filesystem, osdfs, that is mounted > > on an OSD scsi-device, which is a char-device. Now the osdfs when mounting > > an OSD device does not use __open, like user mode it needs some kernel > > reference counting to keep the char-device up. On the other hand > > the actual teardown and unmap of the char-device is done from the scsi-ml > > remove vector. So just like in sd, sr and other scsi ULDs I need to unmap > > the device but keep the memory allocated and available until the last reference. > > All this is usually done using the Release() of the block-device. But for me > > I only have a char-device. Currently what I had to do is keep another kref > > to govern the device's lifecycle and sync every thing together. A Release() at > > the char-dev would let me reuse what's there and let me clean all that code up. > > > > While Investigating the problem and compering what was done on the block-device > > side, I've seen more then a few places that private reference counting could be > > dropped completely, and the char-dev could be used. Off my head some of these places > > are: > > - UBI used by UBIFS > > - sg.c which does not have a Kernel user but needs it's char device until > > scsi-Remove and/or __close() > > > > and other places as well. > > Hmmm... if you can use this change, I think you can push it through > whatever tree you push patches through, things can be taken care of when > merging or we can put it in Greg's tree and ask Miklos to pull from the > tree first but Greg doesn't keep a stable tree.
I don't keep a stable tree? What do you mean? It's a quilt tree, and it does get included in -next, so I think it does work :)
Send it to me again and I'll push it through my tree if no one else objects.
thanks,
greg k-h
| |