On 09/22/2010 10:53 AM, Kay Sievers wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 00:49, Greg KH <greg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> int device_register(struct device *dev)
>> {
>> + int retval;
>> +
>> device_initialize(dev);
>> - return device_add(dev);
>> + retval = device_add(dev);
>> + if (retval)
>> + put_device(dev);
>> + return retval;
>> }
>
>> Kay, what am I missing here, why can't we just do this? Hm, the
>> side-affect might be that if device_register() fails, NO ONE had better
>> touch that device again, as it might have just been freed from the
>> system. I wonder if that will cause problems...
>
> That looks right, besides that there might be callers already doing
> this. Which needs to be checked.
>
> I never liked this pretty useless "convenience API", which just wraps
> two simple functions and the first one can never fail anyway.
>
> We better remove that device_register() stuff entirely in the long
> run, it's not doing any good. At the kobject level we killed the same
> stuff already long ago.
>
That would be fine, and ping me when you do it, I'll help with my
driver. But don't forget to let us have a way to embed a device inside
a bigger structure.
For meanwhile Please check the patch James sent to add_device that cleans
up the allocation of the kobj.name member. (And the comment made there)
> Kay
Thanks
Boaz
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
