On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 17:04:40 +0100, Kay Sievers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-11-29 at 10:54 -0500, Alan Stern wrote: > > On Thu, 29 Nov 2007, Kay Sievers wrote: > > > > > > And if someone calls kobject_put() after kobject_init() to clean up, > > > > their release function will not be called if they didn't set the ktype. > > > > So the check really belongs into kobject_init() IMO. > > > > Right. And even though cleaning up no longer needs to drop a reference > > to the kset, it still might need to free the kobject's name. So for > > example, either of these sequences: > > > > kobject_init(); kobject_set_name(); > > kobject_set_name(); kobject_init(); > > ... ... > > kobject_free(); kobject_free(); > > > > would leak memory. > > Yeah, only the kobject_put() would free the name. > > > In fact, if we were designing the kobject API from scratch, I'd suggest > > making the ktype value an argument to kobject_init() so that it > > _couldn't_ be omitted. > > Sounds fine, maybe we should also pass the name along, so it will be > obvious what happens here: > int kobject_init(struct kobject *kobj, struct kobj_type *type, const char > *fmt, ...) Agreed. Better don't hide too much. - 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/
