From: "Dmitry Torokhov" <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>
To: "Tejun Heo" <htejun@gmail.com>
Cc: "Cornelia Huck" <cornelia.huck@de.ibm.com>,
"Alan Stern" <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"Greg K-H" <greg@kroah.com>,
"Rusty Russell" <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFD] alternative kobject release wait mechanism
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 12:35:48 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <d120d5000704200935r2fb1e614m6da149eee0aec5b6@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <462856B9.9010307@gmail.com>
Hi Tejun,
On 4/20/07, Tejun Heo <htejun@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello, Dmitry.
>
> Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > On 4/19/07, Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@de.ibm.com> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 09:13:43 -0400,
> >> "Dmitry Torokhov" <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Because they are managed by 2 different entities. the struct device
> >> > objects are managed by device core and driver-specific objects are
> >> > managed by their respective driver.
> >>
> >> Not sure if I understand you here. My view of this was always that the
> >> embedding object was kind of an extended device and that the relevant
> >> driver/subsystem managed it through the driver core infrastructure.
> >>
> >
> > I am not sure if I agree with this point of view. Driver (or
> > subsystem) provides an instance of struct device for the rest of the
> > system to iteract uniformly with (suspend/resume/tree
> > visualization/etc) i.e. struct device implement an interface for
> > subsystems. However most of the system use their own mechanisms to
> > manage their devices. They can rely on the driver core to a certain
> > degree but driver core is mostly a carries out helper functions, not
> > the meat.
>
> Many drivers (at least all the SCSI/IDE ones) consider struct device as
> the base class of the devices those drivers implement. I don't think we
> can just consider those drivers to be wrong.
I am not saying they are wrong I am just saying that driver core is
not where most work is done. Every subsystem has its own locking rules
and lifetime rules and they are what is important. Whether subsystem
uses embedding or referencing of struct devices is implementation
detail.
What is the goal of driver core? I thought the main goal was to have
an uniform interface for device power management and presentation of
device tree to userspace. It has nothing to do with main purposes of
every individual subsystem - making some set of devices/services work.
--
Dmitry
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-04-20 16:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 70+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-04-16 17:36 [Patch -mm 0/3] RFC: module unloading vs. release function Cornelia Huck
2007-04-16 18:30 ` Dmitry Torokhov
2007-04-16 18:47 ` Greg KH
2007-04-16 19:03 ` Dmitry Torokhov
2007-04-16 19:11 ` Greg KH
2007-04-16 20:20 ` Dmitry Torokhov
2007-04-16 19:38 ` Alan Stern
2007-04-16 19:47 ` Dmitry Torokhov
2007-04-16 19:52 ` Greg KH
2007-04-16 20:18 ` Dmitry Torokhov
2007-04-16 21:02 ` Alan Stern
2007-04-17 7:49 ` Cornelia Huck
2007-04-16 20:44 ` Alexey Dobriyan
2007-04-17 2:55 ` Rusty Russell
2007-04-17 7:36 ` Cornelia Huck
2007-04-16 18:53 ` Greg KH
2007-04-17 18:41 ` [PATCH RFD] alternative kobject release wait mechanism Tejun Heo
2007-04-17 18:49 ` Tejun Heo
2007-04-18 8:11 ` Cornelia Huck
2007-04-18 8:46 ` Tejun Heo
2007-04-18 9:35 ` Cornelia Huck
2007-04-18 9:55 ` Tejun Heo
2007-04-18 8:07 ` Cornelia Huck
2007-04-18 8:36 ` Tejun Heo
2007-04-18 14:53 ` Alan Stern
2007-04-18 15:26 ` Cornelia Huck
2007-04-18 15:34 ` Tejun Heo
2007-04-18 15:45 ` Tejun Heo
2007-04-18 19:07 ` Alan Stern
2007-04-20 5:27 ` Tejun Heo
2007-04-20 9:11 ` Cornelia Huck
2007-04-20 15:01 ` Alan Stern
2007-04-20 15:57 ` Dmitry Torokhov
2007-04-21 15:19 ` Alan Stern
2007-04-20 15:40 ` Alan Stern
2007-04-21 0:03 ` Greg KH
2007-04-21 21:36 ` Alan Stern
2007-04-22 17:40 ` Greg KH
2007-04-23 7:08 ` Cornelia Huck
2007-04-23 19:47 ` Alan Stern
2007-04-24 19:38 ` Alan Stern
2007-04-25 9:00 ` Cornelia Huck
2007-04-25 20:13 ` Alan Stern
2007-04-26 8:21 ` Cornelia Huck
2007-04-26 14:58 ` Alan Stern
2007-04-26 15:12 ` Cornelia Huck
2007-04-18 16:11 ` Alan Stern
2007-04-18 16:38 ` Tejun Heo
2007-04-18 16:41 ` Dmitry Torokhov
2007-04-19 12:51 ` Cornelia Huck
2007-04-19 13:13 ` Dmitry Torokhov
2007-04-19 13:48 ` Cornelia Huck
2007-04-19 14:21 ` Dmitry Torokhov
2007-04-20 5:59 ` Tejun Heo
2007-04-20 16:35 ` Dmitry Torokhov [this message]
2007-04-20 16:52 ` Tejun Heo
2007-04-20 17:59 ` Dmitry Torokhov
2007-04-23 6:40 ` Tejun Heo
2007-04-23 6:53 ` Greg KH
2007-04-19 17:19 ` Alan Stern
2007-04-19 18:39 ` Dmitry Torokhov
2007-04-19 22:37 ` Alan Stern
2007-04-20 16:35 ` Dmitry Torokhov
2007-04-21 15:30 ` Alan Stern
2007-04-18 15:06 ` Cornelia Huck
2007-04-18 16:06 ` Tejun Heo
2007-04-19 13:29 ` Cornelia Huck
2007-04-19 14:20 ` Alan Stern
2007-04-19 14:49 ` Cornelia Huck
2007-04-20 9:04 ` Cornelia Huck
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=d120d5000704200935r2fb1e614m6da149eee0aec5b6@mail.gmail.com \
--to=dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com \
--cc=cornelia.huck@de.ibm.com \
--cc=greg@kroah.com \
--cc=htejun@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rusty@rustcorp.com.au \
--cc=stern@rowland.harvard.edu \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®