On Wed, 2010-09-22 at 08:47 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 12:02:30PM +0200, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
> > 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.
>
> That's what you should be doing anyway, so it shouldn't be a problem.
>
> > 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)
>
> See my other email why that isn't a good idea.
What other email? ... neither you nor Kay replied after either Boaz's
patch or the corrected one were posted.
James
--
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
