On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 07:47:52 +0200, Stefan Richter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The patch does nothing for all subsystems which do > > device_initialize(&dev); > dev->parent = pd; > device_add(&dev); > > Let's avoid to add infrastructure which does nothing, or only does > something by accident. I agree. dev->parent now is only expected to be set in device_add(), not in device_initialize(), so the sequence above is perfectly fine. (Why should you need it, anyway? parent information becomes necessary only when something is added to the tree.) > > The alternatives are: > > - Change all subsystems to set dev->parent before device_initialize(). > *Document* that the device_initialize() API has this requirement. > This is counter-intuitive, amounts to some work across the kernel, > and could be gotten wrong again in future code because it's a > counter-intuitive API. Yes. We shouldn't do that. > > - Move your code from device_initialize() to device_add(). One minor > drawback is that node-specific allocations based on the device's > numa_node would not be optimized before device_add(), but there is > probably no need for this. Driver probes come after device_add(). I'd expect most allocations to be done when probing, so this shouldn't hurt much. > > - Let subsystems explicitly call set_dev_node() on their own. > > > Also keep in mind that either device_move() should update the numa_node, > or the subsystems which call device_move() should explicitly update it > on their own. (Unless they know that their devices will always stay at > the same NUMA node even when switching parents.) I'd trust the subsystems to know best whether something regarding NUMA changed. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
