On Monday, 11 June 2007 17:59, Alan Stern wrote: > On Mon, 11 Jun 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > The pm_parent member of struct dev_pm_info (defined in include/linux/pm.h) > > is > > only used to check if the device's parent is in the right state while the > > device is being suspended or resumed. However, this can be done just as > > well > > with the help of the parent pointer in struct device, so pm_parent can be > > removed along with some code that handles it. > > > @@ -61,21 +40,26 @@ int device_pm_add(struct device * dev) > > kobject_name(&dev->kobj)); > > mutex_lock(&dpm_list_mtx); > > list_add_tail(&dev->power.entry, &dpm_active); > > - device_pm_set_parent(dev, dev->parent); > > - if ((error = dpm_sysfs_add(dev))) > > + /* > > + * The device's parent must not be released until the device itself is > > + * removed from the dpm_active list. > > + */ > > + get_device(dev->parent); > > + error = dpm_sysfs_add(dev); > > + if (error) > > list_del(&dev->power.entry); > > mutex_unlock(&dpm_list_mtx); > > return error; > > } > > The error pathway here does an unbalanced get_device on dev->parent. > > Anyway, I don't think you need to do this get_device at all (or the > coresponding put in device_pm_remove). As long as a device is > registered it retains a reference to its parent, and unregistration > always calls device_pm_remove.
Yes, I've just come to the same conclusion. I'll remove the get_device(dev->parent) and the correspondint put_device(dev->parent) from device_pm_remove(). Greetings, Rafael -- "Premature optimization is the root of all evil." - Donald Knuth - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
