[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20071130223304.GA7916@kroah.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 14:33:04 -0800
From: Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
To: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
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, Nov 30, 2007 at 05:10:33PM -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Nov 2007, Greg KH wrote:
>
> > Ok, how about this:
> > void kobject_init(struct kobject *kobj, struct ktype *ktype);
> >
> > and then:
> > int kobject_add(struct kobject *kobj, struct kobject *parent, const char *fmt, ...);
> >
> > After we call kobject_init() we HAVE to call kobject_put() to clean up
> > properly. So, if kobject_add() fails, we still need to clean up with
> > kobject_put();
>
> You could put that a little less strongly. After kobject_init() you
> SHOULD call kobject_put() to clean up properly, and after kobject_add()
> you MUST call kobject_del() and kobject_put().
No, in looking at the code, you only need to call kobject_del() to clean
everything up properly, if kobject_add() succeeds. No need to call
kobject_put() yet again.
Can someone else verify that this really is correct?
thanks,
greg k-h
p.s. I think it's time to start a "travel to .nz and kick a certain
ex-kernel-developer around a bit" fund...
-
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