Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 3 Mar 2004 14:16:46 -0800 | From | Greg KH <> | Subject | Re: Question about (or bug in?) the kobject implementation |
| |
On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 05:11:02PM -0500, Alan Stern wrote: > On Wed, 3 Mar 2004, Greg KH wrote: > > > On Fri, Feb 27, 2004 at 11:02:34PM -0500, Alan Stern wrote: > > > We're actually discussing two different questions here. > > > > > > A. Is it okay to call kobject_add() after calling kobject_del() -- > > > this was my original question. > > > > No, this is not ok. It might happen to work, but it is not valid. > > I want to understand _why_ it is not valid. Can you explain please? > > From what you said earlier, I got the impression that calling _add() after > _del() is illegal because it runs the risk that the refcount may be 0 and > the object may be gone.
Yes, that is the risk.
> But if you have a separate valid reference, that can't happen. Would > it be legal then, or is there more to it?
Hm, it probably would work, hence the current working USB code :) But I really don't want to "special case" anything here. So it's easier to say, "just don't do that".
thanks,
greg k-h - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |