On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 02:46:55PM +0100, Jean Delvare wrote: > On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 23:02:49 +0100, Hans Verkuil wrote: > > I feel I am missing something here. Why does clientdata have to be set to > > NULL when we are tearing down the device anyway? > We're not tearing down the device, that's the point. We are only > unbinding it from its driver. The device itself survives the operation. That's the subsystem point of view, not the driver point of view. As far as the driver is concerned the device appears when probe() is called and vanishes after remove() has completed, any management the subsystem does in between is up to it. > 1* It is good practice to have memory freed not too far from where it > was allocated, otherwise there is always a risk of unmatched pairs. In > this regard, it seems preferable to let each i2c driver kfree the > device memory it kalloc'd, be it in probe() or remove(). I agree with this. There are also some use cases where the device data is actually static (eg, a generic description of the device or a reference to some other shared resource rather than per device allocated data). > 2* References to allocated memory should be dropped before that memory > is freed. This means that we want to call i2c_set_clientdata(c, NULL) > before kfree(d). As a corollary, we can't do the former in i2c-core and > the later in device drivers. This is where the mismatch between the subsystem view of the device lifetime and the driver view of the device lifetime comes into play. For the driver once the device is unregistered the device no longer exists - if the driver tries to work with the device it's buggy. This means that to the driver returning from the remove() function is dropping the reference to the data and there's no reason for the driver to take any other action. The device may hang around after the remove() has happened, but if the device driver knows or cares about it then it's doing something wrong. Similarly on probe() we can't assme anything about the pointer since even if we saw the device before we can't guarantee that some other driver didn't do so as well. The situation is similar to that with kfree() - we don't memset() data we're freeing with that, even though it might contain pointers to other things. > So we are in the difficult situation where we can't do both in i2c-core > because that violates point 1 above, we can't do half in i2c-core and > half in device drivers because this violates point 2 above, so we fall > back to doing both in device drivers, which doesn't violate any point > but duplicates the code all around. Personally I'd much rather just not bother setting the driver data in the removal path, it seems unneeded. I had assumed that the subsystem code cared for some reason when I saw the patch series. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
