On 27.01.2014 10:54, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > Hi Alexey, > > On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 10:31:36AM +0400, Alexey Khoroshilov wrote: >> On 21.01.2014 23:59, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: >>> On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 03:24:26AM +0400, Alexey Khoroshilov wrote: >>>> There is usb_get_dev() in gtco_probe(), but there is no usb_put_dev() >>>> anywhere in the driver. >>>> >>>> The patch adds usb_get_dev() to failure handling code of gtco_probe() >>>> and to gtco_disconnect((). >>> Hmm, I think gtco should simply not use usb_get_dev() in the first >>> place. >>> >>> Thanks. >> Dear Dmitry, >> >> Could you please clarify why usb_get_dev() not needed here? >> We store reference to usb_dev in gtco structure, so we should refcount it. >> What is wrong in this reasoning? > The lifetime of gtco structure is already directly tied to lifetime of > usb_dev: when destroying usb_dev driver core will call remove() function > of currently bound driver (in our case gtco) which will destroy gtco > memory. > > Taking additional reference is not needed here. > > Hope this helps. Thank you, that helps a lot. By the way, usb_skeleton suggests to use usb_get_dev()/usb_put_dev() nevertheless. Greg, may be it makes sense to fix usb_skeleton as well? -- Alexey -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-input" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
