[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.0711291708080.5666-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 17:11:35 -0500 (EST)
From: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To: Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
cc: Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@...ibm.com>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@...y.org>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Sample kset/ktype/kobject implementation
On Thu, 29 Nov 2007, Greg KH wrote:
> > > > kobject_put(foo) is needed since it gets you through kobject_cleanup()
> > > > where the name can be freed.
> > >
> > > No, kobject_register() should have handled that for us, right?
> >
> > kobject_register() doesn't do a kobject_put() if kobject_add() failed.
>
> Crap. If I can't get this code right in an example, the API is messed
> up. Time to take Kay seriously and start to revamp the basic kobject
> api :)
The rule is simple enough. After calling kobject_register() you should
always use kobject_put() -- even if kobject_register() failed.
In fact, after calling kobject_init() you should use kobject_put().
The first rule follows from this one, since kobject_register() calls
kobject_init() internally.
Alan Stern
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists