Re: Freeing of dev->p

[Greg Kroah-Hartman]

On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 08:29:11AM +0100, Jean Delvare wrote:
> Hi Greg,
> 
> On Fri, 10 Jan 2014 07:24:02 -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 03:39:07PM +0100, Jean Delvare wrote:
> > > (...)
> > > Then I suppose we could inline both functions
> > > again, for performance. Well, put in short, really revering
> > > b4028437876866aba4747a655ede00f892089e14 would be the way to go IMHO.
> > >
> > > Really, while I understand your envy to protect driver core internals
> > > from unwanted access, the cost here was simply too high IMHO, both in
> > > terms of getting things right and performance. Some drivers are calling
> > > dev_get_drvdata() directly or indirectly repeatedly at run-time. They
> > > had no reason not to as this used to be so fast, and now it is no
> > > longer an inline function, it has conditionals and a double pointer
> > > indirection...
> > > 
> > > Plus, I can't think of anything really bad that could result from
> > > accessing driver_data directly, contrary to the other members of struct
> > > device_private.
> > 
> > (...)
> > 
> > Thanks for the detailed response, I think I'll just revert most of that
> > patch and see if it's still workable.
> 
> Any news on this?

Stuck with dealing with merge-window issues and conferences, don't
worry, this isn't lost, it's still on my todo list...

thanks for your patience,

greg k-h
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/