Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 04 Dec 2013 19:39:07 +0100 | From | Levente Kurusa <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] x86: mcheck: call put_device on device_register failure |
| |
2013-12-04 08:38, Chen, Gong: > On Tue, Dec 03, 2013 at 06:01:50PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote: >> Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2013 18:01:50 +0100 >> From: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de> >> To: "Chen, Gong" <gong.chen@linux.intel.com> >> Cc: Levente Kurusa <levex@linux.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, >> Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>, "H. >> Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, x86@kernel.org, EDAC >> <linux-edac@vger.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org> >> Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: mcheck: call put_device on device_register failure >> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) >> >> Can you please fix your >> >> Mail-Followup-To: >> >> header? It is impossible to reply to your emails without fiddling with >> the To: and Cc: by hand which gets very annoying over time. > > I add some configs in my muttrc. Hope it works. > >> >> On Mon, Dec 02, 2013 at 09:23:30PM -0500, Chen, Gong wrote: >>> I have some concerns about it. if device_register is failed, it will >>> backtraces all kinds of conditions automatically, including put_device >>> definately. So do we really need an extra put_device when it returns >>> failure? >> >> Do you mean the "done:" label in device_add() which does put_device() >> and which gets called by device_register()? >> > > Not only. I noticed that another put_device under label "Error:". >
That label is called when we failed to add the kobject to its parent. It just puts the parent of the device. I don't think it has anything to do with us put_device()-ing the actual device too.
-- Regards, Levente Kurusa
| |