On Thu, 14 Jan 2021 12:27:43 +0200 Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 07:30:33PM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > On Mon, 11 Jan 2021 19:43:14 +0200 Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > > +struct ocelot_devlink_private {
> > > + struct ocelot *ocelot;
> > > +};
> >
> > I don't think you ever explained to me why you don't put struct ocelot
> > in the priv.
> >
> > - ocelot = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, sizeof(*ocelot), GFP_KERNEL);
> > - if (!ocelot)
> > + devlink = devlink_alloc(&ocelot_devlink_ops, sizeof(*ocelot));
> > + if (!devlink)
> > return -ENOMEM;
> > + ocelot = devlink_priv(ocelot->devlink);
>
> Because that's not going to be all? The error path handling and teardown
> all need to change, because I no longer use device-managed allocation,
> and I wanted to avoid that.
Come on, is it really hard enough to warrant us exchanging multiple
emails? Having driver structure in devlink priv is the standard way
of handling this, there's value in uniformity.
