Hello, James. On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 10:58:29AM -0700, James Bottomley wrote: > The argument is that we shouldn't have to explicitly destroy a > statically initialized object, so > > DEFINE_IDA(someida); > > Should just work without having to explicitly do > > ida_destory(someida); > > somewhere in the exit code. It's about usage patterns. Michael's > argument is that if we can't follow the no destructor pattern for > DEFINE_IDA() then we shouldn't have it at all, because it's confusing > kernel design patterns. The pattern we would have would be > > struct ida someida: > > ida_init(&someida); > > ... > > ida_destroy(&someida); > > so the object explicitly has a constructor matched to a destructor.
Yeah, I get that. I'm just not convinced that this matters enough especially if we can get debugobj/ksan/whatever trip on it. Thanks. -- tejun -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
