On Thu, 29 Nov 2007, Kay Sievers wrote:
> > 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, ...)
I don't know... Normally *_init() routines can't fail, but this could.
Then things like device_register() would run into trouble: The caller
wouldn't know whether a failure occurred before or after the
kobject_init() call, so it wouldn't know what sort of cleanup action
was needed: kfree() or device_put().
> Oh, if you want to rewind on error and have an initialized but still
> unregistered kobject, and just want to free the allocated name by
> calling kobject_cleanup() or kobject_put() you might not expect, that
> your whole object that embeds the kobject will be gone. Just something
> we need to document ...
When that sort of thing happens, the unwinding should be done by the
code responsible for whole object. For example, if device_add() fails
then the caller should go on to call device_put() rather than
kfree(dev).
That's how you would expect things to work in most cases. There aren't
many bare kobjects in the kernel.
I agree that documenting this behavior would be good.
Alan Stern
-
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]