On Fri, Nov 30, 2007 at 06:22:37PM -0500, Alan Stern wrote: > On Fri, 30 Nov 2007, Greg KH wrote: > > And you > > can't know that, so you have to call kobject_put() in order to be safe > > and clean up everything. > > > > Now why did we not do the final kobject_put() in kobject_del() as well? > > Doing two calls, always in order, seems a bit strange, anyone know why > > it's this way? > > To be symmetrical with kobject_init() and kobject_add(). Besides, > isn't there kobject_unregister()? Presumably it will go away along > with kobject_register(), though.
Yes, it will go away too, once everyone gets converted. > > > You could put that a little less strongly. After kobject_init() you > > > SHOULD call kobject_put() to clean up properly, and after kobject_add() > > > you MUST call kobject_del() and kobject_put(). > > > > No, in looking at the code, you only need to call kobject_del() to clean > > everything up properly, if kobject_add() succeeds. No need to call > > kobject_put() yet again. > > Sorry, yes, that's what I meant. After a successful call to > kobject_add() you must call kobject_del() to undo the _add, and then > kobject_put() for the final cleanup. No, kobject_del() does the put for you[1]. All that is needed is a call to kobject_del(). I'll post the updated patches in a minute, they look and seem to work much better. thanks, greg k-h - 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/
