[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100923121024.GA26888@albatros>
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 16:10:24 +0400
From: Vasiliy Kulikov <segooon@...il.com>
To: Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
Cc: Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@...y.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
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 08:50 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 10:53:21AM +0200, Kay Sievers wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Yes, it would be. I'll go through the tree.
As I see with this in-device_register patch we should check for 2 things:
1) nobody should call put_device() because of failed device_register().
2) dev has to be already got, other words its ref counter should not be zero.
Correct?
--
Vasiliy
--
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