On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 12:14:15PM +0000, Robin Murphy wrote:
Makes sense to me. How about an additional flag which autoremoves theNot quite - the issue here is that we have one supplier with an arbitrarilyOn Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 8:12 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tuesday, March 13, 2018 12:23:34 PM CET Tomasz Figa wrote:
On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 7:34 PM, Vivek Gautam <vivek.gautam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:It is not clear to me what the device_link_del_dev(consumer, supplier)
On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 3:45 PM, Tomasz Figa <tfiga@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:Perhaps let's wait for a moment to see if there are other opinions. :)
On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 5:55 PM, Vivek Gautam <vivek.gautam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:Yea, that sounds simpler i think. Will add this API instead of
The lists managing the device-links can be traversed toI'm wondering if this API would be useful for anything else that the
find the link between two devices. The device_link_add() APIs
does traverse these lists to check if there's already a link
setup between the two devices.
So, add a new APIs, device_link_find(), to find an existing
device link between two devices - suppliers and consumers.
problem we're trying to solve with deleting links without storing them
anywhere. Perhaps a device_link_del_dev(consumer, supplier) would be a
better alternative?
find_link(). Thanks.
Rafael, Lucas, any thoughts?
would do.
large number of consumers, and would prefer that supplier not to have to
spend a whole bunch of memory to store all the struct device_link pointers
for the sole reason of having something to give to device_link_del() at the
end, given that the device links code is already keeping track of everything
internally anyway.
link on provider unbind?
Thanks,
Lukas