On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 01:53:47PM +0100, Johan Hovold wrote: > On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 12:47:37PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > > A memset() should be enough, if not then we have problems with any > > dynamically allocated struct device. > And how would you know that it is safe to memset that struct device? > There can still be references to it. And driver core explicitly forbids > this (see device_add() for example). My point here is that the memset() of something that was passed in externally isn't really a problem, it's the suspicious lack of integration with a release function (hence my question about why the driver core isn't complaining when the device gets registered). The comment is more of a concern than the memset() itself. > Dynamically allocated struct device are not the problem as then you're > not *reusing* the same device structure. You may end up doing exactly that depending on what you get back from the allocator of course. The point is to make sure that that the driver model called release(), dynamically allocating and freeing in the release function is the easiest way to do this but it's not magic.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
