2017-12-20 23:53 GMT+08:00 Cornelia Huck <[email protected]>:
> On Wed, 20 Dec 2017 12:26:25 +0800
> weiping zhang <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> [you used a different mail address in your From: than in your s-o-b:;
> same for the other patches]
>
>> In order to make caller do a simple cleanup, we split device_register
>> into device_initialize and device_add. device_initialize always sucess,
>
> s/success/succeeds/
>
>> the caller can always use put_device when fail to register virtio_device
>
> "so the caller can always use put_device when register_virtio_device
> failed,"
>
>> no matter fail at ida_simple_get or at device_add.
>
> "no matter whether it failed..."
>
>> + *
>> + * If an error occurs, the caller must use put_device, instead of kfree,
>> because
>> + * device_initialize and device_add will increase @dev->dev's reference
>> count.
>
> That's not correct: It's not because of device_add increasing the
> reference count (it releases it again on failure), but because another
> code path may have obtained a reference.
>
> What about:
>
> "On error, the caller must call put_device on &@dev->dev (and not
> kfree), as another code path may have obtained a reference to @dev."
>
It's good to understand, further more dev->name may has a bit mem leak.
anyway, I'll correct all comments at V5. Thanks very much.
>> + *
>> + * Returns: 0 on suceess, -error on failure
>> + */
>> int register_virtio_device(struct virtio_device *dev)
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
