[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2118225.n4e7fofQ54@harkonnen>
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 10:32:16 +0200
From: Federico Vaga <federico.vaga@...il.com>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] base/core.c: improve comment of the function device_find_child()
On Friday 12 April 2013 14:51:25 Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 01:59:32PM +0200, Federico Vaga wrote:
> > Signed-off-by: Federico Vaga <federico.vaga@...il.com>
> > ---
> >
> > drivers/base/core.c | 4 ++++
> > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/base/core.c b/drivers/base/core.c
> > index 016312437..eb0c6ea 100644
> > --- a/drivers/base/core.c
> > +++ b/drivers/base/core.c
> > @@ -1372,6 +1372,10 @@ int device_for_each_child(struct device *parent,
> > void *data,>
> > * if it does. If the callback returns non-zero and a reference to the
> > * current device can be obtained, this function will return to the
> > caller
> > * and not iterate over any more devices.
> >
> > + *
> > + * NOTE: internally, the function does get_device() on the retrieved
> > child. + * It is duty of the caller performing a put_device() on the
> > retrieved + * child device when the caller finishes to work on it.
> >
> > */
>
> Why not just use the same wording that class_find_device() has, which is
> simpler and easier to understand (IMHO)?
Mh, yes. You are right. I'll send a new patch
--
Federico Vaga
--
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