On Thu, Feb 13, 2025 at 8:10 PM Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > A: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_post > Q: Were do I find info about this thing called top-posting? > A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. > Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? > A: Top-posting. > Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail? > > A: No. > Q: Should I include quotations after my reply? > > http://daringfireball.net/2007/07/on_top > > On Thu, Feb 13, 2025 at 07:57:15PM +0800, Hsin-chen Chuang wrote: > > The btusb driver data is allocated by devm_kzalloc and is > > automatically freed on driver detach, so I guess we don't have > > anything to do here. > > What? A struct device should NEVER be allocated with devm_kzalloc. > That's just not going to work at all. Noted. Perhaps that needs to be refactored together. > > > Or perhaps we should move btusb_disconnect's content here? Luiz, what > > do you think? > > I think something is really wrong here. Why are you adding a new struct > device to the system? What requires that? What is this new device > going to be used for? The new device is only for exposing a new sysfs attribute. So originally we had a device called hci_dev, indicating the implementation of the Bluetooth HCI layer. hci_dev is directly the child of the usb_interface (the Bluetooth chip connected through USB). Now I would like to add an attribute for something that's not defined in the HCI layer, but lower layer only in Bluetooth USB. Thus we want to rephrase the structure: usb_interface -> btusb (new device) -> hci_dev, and then we could place the new attribute in the new device. Basically I kept the memory management in btusb unchanged in this patch, as the new device is only used for a new attribute. Would you suggest we revise the memory management since we added a device in this module? > > confused, > > > greg k-h -- Best Regards, Hsin-chen
