On Thu, 2007-11-29 at 15:09 -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Nov 2007, Kay Sievers wrote:
>
> > > 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. :)
>
> I don't see that as a problem and it's not clear why you do.
>
> It doesn't matter whether a kobject has been registered or not; once
> it has been initialized you _should_ call kobject_put(). (Although
> it's okay to call kfree() if the name hasn't been set yet.)
I just say, it's exactly the same problem and it does not really make a
difference that kobject_init() does not do anything, if we require
another function to be called before we can call kobject_add(). A
kobject without a name will not be valid, and we will need a way for an
easy cleanup of allocated resources I think.
> The same is true of larger objects. Once you have called
> device_initialize(), you _should_ call device_put() (although it's okay
> to call kfree()). Provided init routines don't consume resources, this
> will work.
>
> The only remaining problem is that somebody might set the name first
> and then decide to abandon the object before calling kobject_init().
> However this probably never happens anywhere.
What is the whole point of kobject_init() then? You can just do the same
stuff in kobject_add() if you require not to allocate anything there.
None of the initialized fields can be used before we have called
kobject_add(), right?
> > > 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.
>
> Are you also going to change all the places in the kernel where the
> device name (.bus_id) isn't set until after device_initialize() has
> been called?
Yes, I already have a patch that does that for all stuff that was needed
on my boxes.
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]
