[+Cc Greg] On 12/19/2013 04:34 PM, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, > > On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 10:31 AM, Levente Kurusa <le...@linux.com> wrote: >> The reason I removed the kfree() was because the put_device() will decrement >> wq_dev->dev's reference count to zero (it is set to one by device_register) >> and hence the >> wq_device_release() will be called. Now, this effectively does the same the >> kfree() call >> would have done but also driver core is notified. > > Yeah, I know it does the same thing. It's just not the right way to do it. > >> Also, if you take a look at the comment for the device_register() function, >> it explicitly >> says NOT to kfree the struct device, but instead call put_device() and let >> the device's release() >> function take care. > > Greg, the API as described by the comment is really weird and > unconventional. Failed calls are not supposed to have side effects > which require explicit cleanup. Can we please update the comment? >
Yes, it was already discussed that it would be more sane to have device_register() call put_device() if it would fail, but Greg said that the API was designed so that no kfree()s happen in the core. -- Regards, Levente Kurusa -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
