On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 17:04:40 +0100,
Kay Sievers <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-11-29 at 10:54 -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
> > On Thu, 29 Nov 2007, Kay Sievers wrote:
> >
> > > > And if someone calls kobject_put() after kobject_init() to clean up,
> > > > their release function will not be called if they didn't set the ktype.
> > > > So the check really belongs into kobject_init() IMO.
> >
> > Right. And even though cleaning up no longer needs to drop a reference
> > to the kset, it still might need to free the kobject's name. So for
> > example, either of these sequences:
> >
> > kobject_init(); kobject_set_name();
> > kobject_set_name(); kobject_init();
> > ... ...
> > kobject_free(); kobject_free();
> >
> > would leak memory.
>
> Yeah, only the kobject_put() would free the name.
>
> > In fact, if we were designing the kobject API from scratch, I'd suggest
> > making the ktype value an argument to kobject_init() so that it
> > _couldn't_ be omitted.
>
> Sounds fine, maybe we should also pass the name along, so it will be
> obvious what happens here:
> int kobject_init(struct kobject *kobj, struct kobj_type *type, const char *fmt, ...)
Agreed. Better don't hide too much.
-
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]
