On Thu, 2007-11-29 at 12:06 -0500, Alan Stern wrote: > On Thu, 29 Nov 2007, Kay Sievers wrote: > > > > In fact, if we were designing the kobject API from scratch, I'd suggest > > > making the ktype value an argument to kobject_init() so that it > > > _couldn't_ be omitted. > > > > Sounds fine, maybe we should also pass the name along, so it will be > > obvious what happens here: > > int kobject_init(struct kobject *kobj, struct kobj_type *type, const char > > *fmt, ...) > > I don't know... Normally *_init() routines can't fail, but this could. > Then things like device_register() would run into trouble: The caller > wouldn't know whether a failure occurred before or after the > kobject_init() call, so it wouldn't know what sort of cleanup action > was needed: kfree() or device_put().
But wouldn't device_register() do the kobject cleanup for you when it fails? Why would a caller of device_register() care about the state of the kobject? > > Oh, if you want to rewind on error and have an initialized but still > > unregistered kobject, and just want to free the allocated name by > > calling kobject_cleanup() or kobject_put() you might not expect, that > > your whole object that embeds the kobject will be gone. Just something > > we need to document ... > > When that sort of thing happens, the unwinding should be done by the > code responsible for whole object. For example, if device_add() fails > then the caller should go on to call device_put() rather than > kfree(dev). > > That's how you would expect things to work in most cases. There aren't > many bare kobjects in the kernel. > > I agree that documenting this behavior would be good. Ok, fine. Hope we will collect all that information in the end. :) Kay - 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/
