On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 02:29:23PM +0400, Alexey Khoroshilov wrote: > 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? Patches are always welcome. -- 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
