On Thu, 2007-11-29 at 14:05 -0500, Alan Stern wrote: > On Thu, 29 Nov 2007, Kay Sievers wrote: > > > Your error scenario confirmed my initial concern about suggesting > > kobject_put() to clean up an initialized kobject. > > > > We should probably make kobject_cleanup() free only the resources taken > > by kobject_init(), and use kobject_cleanup() instead of kobject_put()? > > My conclusion is different. We should make kobject_init() not consume > any resources at all; just initialize various fields. That way it > would be okay to call either kfree() or kobject_put() on an initialized > kobject. And then when something like device_register() fails, the > caller would know the proper thing to do would be to call the put() > routine, always. > > Of course, once the name has been assigned, only kobject_put() should > be used.
Now we just move the exactly the same problem from _init() to _set_name(). To free the name of an unregistered we would need to call _put() which free()'s the whole object again. :) > There's another good reason for not assigning the name in > kobject_init(): Code that uses kobjects (like the driver core) doesn't > set the name until later. That can be done at any stage, I guess. We will rip out the name in the struct device anyway. 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/
