On Tue, Oct 05, 2010 at 06:20:05AM -0700, Greg KH wrote: > On Mon, Oct 04, 2010 at 02:22:14PM +0200, Dan Carpenter wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 04, 2010 at 01:29:00AM +0530, Rahul Ruikar wrote: > > > call put_device() when device_register() fails. > > > > > > > Sorry I didn't realize what you were trying to do here. This is not > > correct at all. > > > > The right thing is to fix device_register() to call put_device() itself. > > It's a bit involved, because all the callers will need to be audited but > > someone is working on this I think. > > No, no one is working on this, and no, it's not possible to make this > type of change to the driver core as discussed in the past due to the > way struct device can be embedded within another structure. Sorry I guess I lost track of the discussion. We could write a helper macro which added the extra put device on failure? Isn't that the more common case anyway? To be honest, I'm still not clear on when the extra put_device() is appropriate and when it's not. :/ I'll look through the archive. Anyway, I would prefer a slightly different patch. The logic is easier to follow if we keep the put_device() right next to the device_register(). Also if we keep it in one function and we add a helper macro later then coccinelle can rewrite it automatically. I'll send my patch. regards, dan carpenter -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
