On 12/19/2013 04:20 PM, Tejun Heo wrote: > Umm... this doesn't look right. You're basically converting the code > to the following, > > x = kmalloc(); > if (register(x) < 0) > put(x) > > They're not symmetrical anymore. register(), or any API call really, > isn't supposed to have side effects which need explicit cleanup after > a failure. The fact that x is properly initialized even after > register(x) failed is a coincidental implementation detail which > shouldn't be depended upon. Your patch is actively breaking the > convention for no good reason. > > Nacked-by: Tejun Heo <t...@kernel.org> > >>From the patch title, I suppose you posted a bunch of patches towards > this direction. Please consider all of them nacked if they're doing > the same thing. > > Thanks. >
The reason I removed the kfree() was because the put_device() will decrement wq_dev->dev's reference count to zero (it is set to one by device_register) and hence the wq_device_release() will be called. Now, this effectively does the same the kfree() call would have done but also driver core is notified. Also, if you take a look at the comment for the device_register() function, it explicitly says NOT to kfree the struct device, but instead call put_device() and let the device's release() function take care. -- Regards, Levente Kurusa -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
