[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.0711301616300.2941-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 16:19:53 -0500 (EST)
From: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To: Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
cc: Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@...ibm.com>,
Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@...y.org>,
Kernel development list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] kobject: add kobject_init_ng and kobject_init_and_add
functions
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007, Greg KH wrote:
> > My suggestion: Have kobject_init_ng() accept a ktype pointer but not a
> > parent or name. Instead, make kobject_add_ng() take the parent and
> > name (possibly a kset also). Then when kobject_init_and_add()
> > encounters an error, it shouldn't do a _put() -- the caller can either
> > do the _put() or just do a kfree().
>
> Why not the parent for init()? Isn't it always known at that time?
> I'll dig to be sure.
Specifying the parent during _add() is more logical, because a kobject
doesn't actually _do_ anything to the parent until it is registered in
the parent's directory. Or to put it another way, an unregistered
kobject can't have a parent in any meaningful sense so there's no point
specifying the parent in the _init() call.
It's really just a matter of taste.
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