Hello,
Satyam Sharma wrote:
> Anyway, we've wasted enough time and bandwidth discussing this
> (relatively trivial) matter, and I know nobody's mind is changed after
> the end of it all (at least mine won't), so I suggest let's stop. The
> proposed change is in Greg's tree already, and if he's fin
Hi Tejun,
On 7/14/07, Tejun Heo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hello,
Satyam Sharma wrote:
> The whole _purpose_ of get()/put() functions (i.e. refcounting in general)
> is to ensure that the (shared) objects don't go away from under us while
> we're holding them. The proposed change _weakens_ the
Hello,
Satyam Sharma wrote:
>> Because mixed situation is undisputably worse than one way or the other
>> && making sysfs_put() to conform to its surroundings is the shortest
>> path to achieve uniformity. Gees, what's so important about allowing or
>> not allowing NULL?
>
> The whole _purpose_
Hi,
Thanks for explaining the purpose behind the proposed change,
but I'm still not convinced that allowing NULL argument in _put()
is a good idea, however:
On 7/13/07, Tejun Heo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Satyam Sharma wrote:
> Please, this is _basic_ refcounting semantics. For those who disag
Hello, forgot one thing.
Tejun Heo wrote:
>> I can't believe it should be so difficult to understand this. How can any
>> caller (that first did a xxx_get() on that shared object) land up with that
>> object getting NULL _from under it_ unless some logic is wrong
>> somewhere? And instead of flagg
Hello,
Satyam Sharma wrote:
> Yoshifuji is 100% correct, IMNSHO.
>
> Please, this is _basic_ refcounting semantics. For those who disagree,
> kindly read Yoshifuji's above paragraph again.
I did but I don't really see anything so basic about refcounting
semantics there.
>> Well, I'm okay either
Hi,
Make sysfs_put() ignore NULL sd instead of oopsing.
>>> I do not think this is a good idea; it is non-sense (and rather a bug)
>>> to call "put" with NULL argument in general.
>> It's better than having to check it all the time in the caller :)
>
> How many callers do we have that will
YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (at Wed, 11 Jul 2007 16:55:29 -0700), Greg KH
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> says:
>
>> On Thu, Jul 12, 2007 at 08:50:47AM +0900, YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / ?$B5HF#1QL@
>> wrote:
>>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (at Wed, 11 Jul 2007 16:31:43 -07
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (at Wed, 11 Jul 2007 16:55:29 -0700), Greg KH
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> says:
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2007 at 08:50:47AM +0900, YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / ?$B5HF#1QL@
> wrote:
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (at Wed, 11 Jul 2007 16:31:43 -0700), Greg
> > Kroah-Hartman <[EMAIL PRO
On Thu, Jul 12, 2007 at 08:50:47AM +0900, YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / ?$B5HF#1QL@ wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (at Wed, 11 Jul 2007 16:31:43 -0700), Greg
> Kroah-Hartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> says:
>
> > Make sysfs_put() ignore NULL sd instead of oopsing.
>
> I do not think this is a good idea;
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (at Wed, 11 Jul 2007 16:31:43 -0700), Greg
Kroah-Hartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> says:
> Make sysfs_put() ignore NULL sd instead of oopsing.
I do not think this is a good idea; it is non-sense (and rather a bug)
to call "put" with NULL argument in general.
--yoshfuji
From: Tejun Heo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Make sysfs_put() ignore NULL sd instead of oopsing.
Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
fs/sysfs/sysfs.h |2 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/sysfs/sysfs
12 matches
Mail list logo
