On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 09:13:43 -0400, "Dmitry Torokhov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Because they are managed by 2 different entities. the struct device > objects are managed by device core and driver-specific objects are > managed by their respective driver. Not sure if I understand you here. My view of this was always that the embedding object was kind of an extended device and that the relevant driver/subsystem managed it through the driver core infrastructure. > > > > Pretty much drivers have 2 options: > > > > > > struct my_device { > > > void *private_data; > > > struct device dev; > > > }; > > > > > > In this case ->release must live in a subsystem code; individual > > > drivers kfree(my_dev->private) and do any additional cleanup after > > > calling device_unregister(&my_dev->dev); > > > > They must do this in the ->remove callback. > > Why? If the driver truly stops hardware then any driver-specific data > is not needed. With sysfs severing access to removed attributes there > is no need to gave "global release", cleanup can be done in stages. I think I meant the same thing :) Freeing the data in the ->release callback is obviously too late. Freeing it in the ->remove callback means that the device is no longer really used (and can't be looked up any more); only some further refrences may linger (and those are of no consequence with the sysfs disconnect). - 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/