On Thu, 2007-11-29 at 14:05 -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Nov 2007, Kay Sievers wrote:
>
> > Your error scenario confirmed my initial concern about suggesting
> > kobject_put() to clean up an initialized kobject.
> >
> > We should probably make kobject_cleanup() free only the resources taken
> > by kobject_init(), and use kobject_cleanup() instead of kobject_put()?
>
> My conclusion is different. We should make kobject_init() not consume
> any resources at all; just initialize various fields. That way it
> would be okay to call either kfree() or kobject_put() on an initialized
> kobject. And then when something like device_register() fails, the
> caller would know the proper thing to do would be to call the put()
> routine, always.
>
> Of course, once the name has been assigned, only kobject_put() should
> be used.
Now we just move the exactly the same problem from _init() to
_set_name(). To free the name of an unregistered we would need to call
_put() which free()'s the whole object again. :)
> There's another good reason for not assigning the name in
> kobject_init(): Code that uses kobjects (like the driver core) doesn't
> set the name until later.
That can be done at any stage, I guess. We will rip out the name in the
struct device anyway.
Kay
-
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]
