On Jan 11, 2008 4:23 PM, Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 10:33:16 +0800,
> "Dave Young" <hidave.darkstar@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> > > > +struct device *class_find_device(struct class *class, void *data,
> > > > + int (*match)(struct device *, void *))
> > > > +{
> > > > + struct device *dev;
> > > > +
> > > > + if (!class)
> > > > + return NULL;
> > > > +
> > > > + mutex_lock(&class->mutex);
> > > > + list_for_each_entry(dev, &class->devices, node)
> > > > + if (match(dev, data) && get_device(dev))
> > >
> > > First get the reference and then drop it if the match function returns
> > > 0 to make this analogous to the other _find_device() functions?
> >
> > It's just like other _find_device() functions. Are these more get/put
> > really needed?
>
> The other _find_device() functions operate on klists, which means that
> there is an implicit get while the element is handled. This function
> operates on a normal list, which means that getting/putting the
> reference looks a bit different if we want the same effect.
>
Hi, you are right. Will be fixed.
Thanks.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
