Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 30 Nov 2007 13:07:37 +0800 | From | "Dave Young" <> | Subject | Re: [RFC] Sample kset/ktype/kobject implementation |
| |
On Nov 30, 2007 6:11 AM, Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu> wrote: > On Thu, 29 Nov 2007, Greg KH wrote: > > > > > > kobject_put(foo) is needed since it gets you through kobject_cleanup() > > > > > where the name can be freed. > > > > > > > > No, kobject_register() should have handled that for us, right? > > > > > > kobject_register() doesn't do a kobject_put() if kobject_add() failed. > > > > Crap. If I can't get this code right in an example, the API is messed > > up. Time to take Kay seriously and start to revamp the basic kobject > > api :) > > The rule is simple enough. After calling kobject_register() you should > always use kobject_put() -- even if kobject_register() failed. > > In fact, after calling kobject_init() you should use kobject_put(). > The first rule follows from this one, since kobject_register() calls > kobject_init() internally. > Hi, The behavior is not very clear here, the root problem is that :
1. Should we call kobject_put so cleanup work can be done by refcount touch zero or call kfree every time after kobject_register failed?
2. If kobject_put calling is true, should this be done in kobject_register error handling codes or by hand after kobject_register failed?
Regards dave > Alan Stern > > > > - > 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/ > - 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/
| |