On Thu, 10 Oct 2002, Patrick Mochel wrote:
> Then, the one thing that really integrates into the driver model: Wrap
> add_disk() and del_gendisk() into ->add_device() and ->remove_device()
> of disk_devclass.
>
> disk_devclass is initialized and added to the tree in
> drivers/block/genhd.c::device_init(). Once a driver is bound a device, it
> is added to the class the driver belongs to, which calls struct
> device_class::add_device(), with a pointer to the struct device of the
> drive.
???
What would trigger that? Notice that places where we call add_disk() _do_
matter - shifting it around is not a good idea.
> The other huge benefits of having a generic object like this are:
>
> - all the current driver model objects can share them, along with the code
> to operate on them.
> - driverfs can easily be taught about them, making reference counting
> easier.
> - The glue layers for adding driverfs support for different object types
> becomes quite a bit less.
I would still try to trim that object down. Yes, having such a beast
would be useful and yes, struct device is too bloated for that. But...
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 15 2002 - 22:00:37 EST