[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <AANLkTimQWtQTBe3RBSbYd7vM4Y+SckkoBDbO8E+SwtJj@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 10:53:21 +0200
From: Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@...y.org>
To: Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Vasiliy Kulikov <segooon@...il.com>,
kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...e.de>,
Dan Carpenter <error27@...il.com>,
Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@...asas.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/14] memstick: core: fix device_register() error handling
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 00:49, Greg KH <greg@...ah.com> wrote:
> int device_register(struct device *dev)
> {
> + int retval;
> +
> device_initialize(dev);
> - return device_add(dev);
> + retval = device_add(dev);
> + if (retval)
> + put_device(dev);
> + return retval;
> }
> Kay, what am I missing here, why can't we just do this? Hm, the
> side-affect might be that if device_register() fails, NO ONE had better
> touch that device again, as it might have just been freed from the
> system. I wonder if that will cause problems...
That looks right, besides that there might be callers already doing
this. Which needs to be checked.
I never liked this pretty useless "convenience API", which just wraps
two simple functions and the first one can never fail anyway.
We better remove that device_register() stuff entirely in the long
run, it's not doing any good. At the kobject level we killed the same
stuff already long ago.
Kay
--
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