2017-12-21 10:37 GMT+08:00 weiping zhang <zwp10758@xxxxxxxxx>: > 2017-12-20 23:53 GMT+08:00 Cornelia Huck <cohuck@xxxxxxxxxx>: >> On Wed, 20 Dec 2017 12:26:25 +0800 >> weiping zhang <zwp10758@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> [you used a different mail address in your From: than in your s-o-b:; >> same for the other patches] a wrong setting of my email client, correct it next time, thanks. >>> In order to make caller do a simple cleanup, we split device_register >>> into device_initialize and device_add. device_initialize always sucess, >> >> s/success/succeeds/ >> >>> the caller can always use put_device when fail to register virtio_device >> >> "so the caller can always use put_device when register_virtio_device >> failed," >> >>> no matter fail at ida_simple_get or at device_add. >> >> "no matter whether it failed..." >> >>> + * >>> + * If an error occurs, the caller must use put_device, instead of kfree, because >>> + * device_initialize and device_add will increase @dev->dev's reference count. >> >> That's not correct: It's not because of device_add increasing the >> reference count (it releases it again on failure), but because another >> code path may have obtained a reference. >> >> What about: >> >> "On error, the caller must call put_device on &@dev->dev (and not >> kfree), as another code path may have obtained a reference to @dev." >> > It's good to understand, further more dev->name may has a bit mem leak. > anyway, I'll correct all comments at V5. Thanks very much. >>> + * >>> + * Returns: 0 on suceess, -error on failure >>> + */ >>> int register_virtio_device(struct virtio_device *dev) _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
