Greg KH <[email protected]> wrote on 22.06.2005 08:26:27:
> What's wrong with just using bus_for_each_dev() instead? You have to
> supply a "match" type function anyway, so the caller doesn't have an
> easier time using this function instead.
Maybe it's just too early in the morning, but I don't see how I could
achive what I want to do with bus_for_each_dev(). The idea behind
bus_find_device() is to scan the bus for a device matching some
criterium and to return a pointer to it with which the caller can
continue to work. bus_for_each_dev() calls the match function for
every device until we abort, but I don't see how I can grab a reference
to a specific device for later use.
> You also don't increment the reference properly when you return the
> pointer, so you better document that... :(
You're right, this should be done in the base code and not by the
caller...
> In short, I don't think this is needed at all, as it's an almost
> identical copy of bus_for_each_dev().
It looks similar, yes, but they are for different purposes:
- bus_for_each_dev(): do something for each device (as specified
in the callback function)
- bus_find_device(): get a reference to a specific device for later
use (as matched in the callback function)
> Same comment as above, I don't think this function is necessary.
Same comment from me, I think I need this interface for drivers
as well.
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h
Regards,
Cornelia
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
