Re: [RFC] Sample kset/ktype/kobject implementation

[Dave Young]

On Nov 30, 2007 6:11 AM, Alan Stern <stern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Nov 2007, Greg KH wrote:
>
> > > > > kobject_put(foo) is needed since it gets you through kobject_cleanup()
> > > > > where the name can be freed.
> > > >
> > > > No, kobject_register() should have handled that for us, right?
> > >
> > > kobject_register() doesn't do a kobject_put() if kobject_add() failed.
> >
> > Crap.  If I can't get this code right in an example, the API is messed
> > up.  Time to take Kay seriously and start to revamp the basic kobject
> > api :)
>
> The rule is simple enough.  After calling kobject_register() you should
> always use kobject_put() -- even if kobject_register() failed.
>
> In fact, after calling kobject_init() you should use kobject_put().
> The first rule follows from this one, since kobject_register() calls
> kobject_init() internally.
>
Hi,
The behavior is not very clear here, the root problem is that :

1. Should we call kobject_put so cleanup work can be done by refcount
touch zero or call kfree every time after kobject_register failed?

2. If kobject_put calling is true, should this be done in
kobject_register error handling codes or by hand after
kobject_register failed?

Regards
dave
> Alan Stern
>
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/