On 10/29/2009 07:11 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-10-26 at 18:58 +0200, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
>> @@ -335,18 +370,19 @@ static int osd_probe(struct device *dev)
>> OSD_ERR("cdev_add failed\n");
>> goto err_put_disk;
>> }
>> - kobject_get(&oud->cdev.kobj); /* 2nd ref see osd_remove() */
>>
>> /* class_member */
>> - oud->class_member = device_create(osd_sysfs_class, dev,
>> - MKDEV(SCSI_OSD_MAJOR, oud->minor), "%s", disk->disk_name);
>> + oud->class_member = device_create(&osd_uld_class, dev,
>> + MKDEV(SCSI_OSD_MAJOR, oud->minor), oud, disk->disk_name);
>> if (IS_ERR(oud->class_member)) {
>> OSD_ERR("class_device_create failed\n");
>> error = PTR_ERR(oud->class_member);
>> goto err_put_cdev;
>> }
>> + oud->save_release = oud->class_member->release;
>> + oud->class_member->release = __remove;
>
> What exactly is the reason for this iffy manipulation? Can't this be
> done properly by adding a dev_release member to osd_uld_class without
> this unnecessary and improper function chaining?
>
I tried, it does not work if I use device_create.
because in device_release(struct kobject *kobj) it has ruffly this:
if (dev->release)
dev->release(dev);
else if (class->dev_release)
class->dev_release(dev);
(See core.c:110)
so since device_create sets a dev->release = it masks out my class->dev_release
Now I have two choice. Above release chaining, or duplicate the 9 lines of code
done in device_create() before the call to device_register. I prefer the first
since it is more resilient to future core changes. (And it is less code lines)
> James
>
>
Boaz
--
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
