On Fri, 30 Nov 2007, Greg KH wrote:
> /**
> + * kobject_init_ng - initialize a kobject structure
> + * @kobj: pointer to the kobject to initialize
> + * @ktype: pointer to the ktype for this kobject.
> + * @parent: pointer to the parent of this kobject.
> + * @fmt: the name of the kobject.
> + *
> + * This function will properly initialize a kobject such that it can then
> + * be passed to the kobject_add() call.
> + *
> + * If the function returns an error, the memory allocated by the kobject
> + * can be safely freed, no other functions need to be called.
> + */
> +void kobject_init_ng(struct kobject *kobj, struct kobj_type *ktype)
Kerneldoc needs to be updated -- no @parent or @fmt. Also no error
returns. But you could say that after this routine runs, the kobject
should be deallocated by kobject_put() and not by calling kfree()
directly.
> +/**
> + * kobject_add_ng - the main kobject add function
> + * @kobj: the kobject to add
> + * @parent: pointer to the parent of the kobject.
> + *
> + * The kobject name is set and added to the kobject hierarchy in this
> + * function.
> + *
> + * If @parent is set, then the parent of the @kobj will be set to it.
> + * If @parent is NULL, then the parent of the @kobj will be set to the
> + * kobject associted with the kset assigned to this kobject. If no kset
> + * is assigned to the kobject, then the kobject will be located in the
> + * root of the sysfs tree.
> + *
> + * If this function returns an error, kobject_put() must be called to
> + * properly clean up the memory associated with the object.
> + *
> + * If the function is successful, the only way to properly clean up the
> + * memory is with a call to kobject_del().
In which case kobject_put() isn't needed?
> + *
> + * Under no instance should the kobject that is passed to this function
> + * be directly freed with a call to kfree(), that can leak memory.
> + */
Should you say something here about uevents?
> +int kobject_add_ng(struct kobject *kobj, struct kobject *parent,
> + const char *fmt, ...)
> +{
> + va_list args;
> + int retval;
> +
> + if (!kobj)
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> + va_start(args, fmt);
> + retval = kobject_set_name_vargs(kobj, fmt, args);
> + va_end(args);
> + if (retval) {
> + printk(KERN_ERR "kobject: can not set name properly!\n");
> + return retval;
> + }
> + kobj->parent = parent;
> + return kobject_add(kobj);
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(kobject_add_ng);
Looks like this should call kobject_add_varg() instead of duplicating
its code.
> +/**
> + * kobject_init_and_add - initialize a kobject structure and add it to the kobject hierarchy
> + * @kobj: pointer to the kobject to initialize
> + * @ktype: pointer to the ktype for this kobject.
> + * @parent: pointer to the parent of this kobject.
> + * @fmt: the name of the kobject.
> + *
> + * This function will properly initialize a kobject and then call
> + * kobject_add().
> + *
> + * If the function returns an error, the kobject passed to this function
> + * must be cleaned up by calling kobject_put(), and not by directly
> + * trying to call kfree() on the kobject.
> + *
> + * If this function succeeds, the only way to properly clean up the
> + * kobject is to call kobject_destroy(), which will clean up all of the
kobject_destroy()? Where did that come from? Or did you mean
kobject_del()?
> + * needed sysfs objects, and the kobject itself (by calling back to the
> + * ktype->release() function.)
> + *
> + * Note that the kobject_uevent() call should be called after this
> + * function succeeds, so that userspace can properly know that the
> + * kobject was created.
> + */
Could the comments be made shorter by saying merely that this routine
combines calls to kobject_init() and kobject_add_ng()?
> +int kobject_init_and_add(struct kobject *kobj, struct kobj_type *ktype,
> + struct kobject *parent, const char *fmt, ...)
> +{
> + va_list args;
> + int retval;
> +
> + kobject_init_ng(kobj, ktype);
> +
> + va_start(args, fmt);
> + retval = kobject_add_varg(kobj, parent, fmt, args);
> + va_end(args);
> +
> + return retval;
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(kobject_init_and_add);
Looks okay.
Did you want to add an extra kobject_put() to the end of kobject_del()?
Or did you want to define a new kobject_destroy() that combines calls
to kobject_del() and kobject_put()?
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]
