On Wed, Mar 28, 2007 at 01:13:56PM +0800, Shaohua Li wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-03-27 at 21:51 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 27, 2007 at 09:27:19PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 21:19:58 -0700 Greg KH <greg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Wed, Mar 28, 2007 at 11:52:33AM +0800, Shaohua Li wrote:
> > > > > +static void cpuidle_state_sysfs_release(struct kobject *kobj)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > + /* Nothing required to do here, just workaround kobject warning*/
> > > > > +}
> > > >
> > > > NO!!!
> > >
> > > heh. This happens rather a lot.
> > >
> > > > Do people think that I add warnings to the kernel so that people can
> > > > just work around them by passing empty functions to the driver core?
> > > >
> > > > Sometimes I wonder why I even try...
> > > >
> > > > Please fix this code, it is wrong.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Is it documented anywhere? I always forget the reasoning so I have to
> > > cc you each time I see it happening.
> >
> > The fact that the kernel itself spits out a message saying:
> > "Device '%s' does not have a release() function, it is broken
> > and must be fixed."
> >
> > isn't enough? What should I change it to, something like this:
> >
> > "Device '%s' does not have a release() function, it is broken
> > and must be fixed, and if you just provide an empty function to
> > remove this warning, rabid echidnas will track you down and
> > puncture your spleen."
> >
> >
> > The reason for this is that the device is a reference counted object,
> > and you have to free the memory in the release function, otherwise you
> > can easily be accessing memory that is freed already.
> >
> > Now note, this patch used a completion function to wait for the object
> > to be destroyed, which isn't the nicest. But if you are going to do
> > this, do it in the release function, like the code did a bit earlier.
> >
> > And if you are doing this because you have two kobjects in the same
> > structure, well, your code is so messed up beyond belief that it needs
> > to be fixed. And yes scsi developers, I'm pointing at you...
> The two kobjects will be removed in the maintime. As I wait for one
> object to be destroyed (the two objects are in one structure, and one
> object's release will free the memory), we haven't the 'using freed
> memory' issue here. Do we still need a .release for the kobject you
> pointed out?
Putting more than one kobject in the same structure is a broken design.
How can you control the lifetime rules properly if there are two
reference counts for the same structure? It doesn't work.
If you really need something like this, then just use a pointer to a
kobject for one of them instead of embedding it. Why do you need two
different kobjects here?
thanks,
greg k-h
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
