On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 10:53:21AM +0200, 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.
Yes, it would be. I'll go through the tree.
> I never liked this pretty useless "convenience API", which just wraps
> two simple functions and the first one can never fail anyway.
Agreed.
> 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.
It's one of the things on my "to change" list.
thanks,
greg k-h
--
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
