On Wed, 2007-11-28 at 14:36 -0500, Alan Stern wrote: > On Wed, 28 Nov 2007, Kay Sievers wrote: > > > > Actually the current code doesn't seem to check whether kobj->ktype is > > > NULL or to use the value of kobj->kset->kobj.ktype. Is this an oversight? > > > > We just require the ktype. > > No -- we should but we don't. Look at the code for kobject_init() and > kobject_add() in Greg's tree and you'll see. Neither of them checks > that kobj->ktype is set.
Yeah, it was another "magic" that was built into the core, the code even tried to find sysfs_ops for completely untyped kobjects. That is gone now, and we should just require a ktype, I think. > > > If there is no containing kset, the parent remains NULL. What happens > > > then? Does the kobject show up in the sysfs top-level directory? > > > > "If the kobject belonging to a kset has no parent kobject set, it will > > be added to the kset's directory. Not all members of a kset do > > necessarily live in the kset directory. If an explicit parent kobject is > > assigned before the kobject is added, the kobject is registered with the > > kset, but added below the parent kobject." > > Yes, but what if neither kobj->parent nor kobj->kset is set? It will show up in the root of sysfs, yes. 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/
