On Fri, 6 Oct 2006, Cornelia Huck wrote: > On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 11:41:05 +0200 (CEST), > Jaroslav Kysela <perex@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Hm, I don't think we should call device_release_driver if > > > bus_attach_device failed (and I think calling bus_remove_device if > > > bus_attach_device failed is unintuitive). I did a patch that added a > > > function which undid just the things bus_add_device did (here: > > > http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=115816560424389&w=2), > > > which unfortunately got lost somewhere... (I'll rebase and resend.) > > > > Yes, but it might be better to check dev->is_registered flag in > > bus_remove_device() before device_release_driver() call to save some code, > > rather than reuse most of code in bus_delete_device(). > > If we undid things (symlinks et al.) in the order we added them, we can > factor out bus_delete_device() from bus_remove_device() and avoid both > code duplication and calling bus_remove_device() if bus_attach_device() > failed. Something like the patch below (untested). It looks better, but I think that having only one function with if (is_registered) saves a few bytes of instruction memory. Anyway, I do not feel myself to judge what's the best. Jaroslav ----- Jaroslav Kysela <perex@xxxxxxx> Linux Kernel Sound Maintainer ALSA Project, SUSE Labs ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys -- and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ Alsa-devel mailing list Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/alsa-devel
