Re: [PATCH] x86: mcheck: call put_device on device_register failure

[Levente Kurusa]

2013-12-04 08:38, Chen, Gong:
> On Tue, Dec 03, 2013 at 06:01:50PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>> Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2013 18:01:50 +0100
>> From: Borislav Petkov <bp@xxxxxxxxx>
>> To: "Chen, Gong" <gong.chen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Levente Kurusa <levex@xxxxxxxxx>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx>,
>>  Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Tony Luck <tony.luck@xxxxxxxxx>, "H.
>>  Peter Anvin" <hpa@xxxxxxxxx>, x86@xxxxxxxxxx, EDAC
>>  <linux-edac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, LKML <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: mcheck: call put_device on device_register failure
>> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
>>
>> Can you please fix your
>>
>> Mail-Followup-To:
>>
>> header? It is impossible to reply to your emails without fiddling with
>> the To: and Cc: by hand which gets very annoying over time.
> 
> I add some configs in my muttrc. Hope it works.
> 
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 02, 2013 at 09:23:30PM -0500, Chen, Gong wrote:
>>> I have some concerns about it. if device_register is failed, it will
>>> backtraces all kinds of conditions automatically, including put_device
>>> definately. So do we really need an extra put_device when it returns
>>> failure?
>>
>> Do you mean the "done:" label in device_add() which does put_device()
>> and which gets called by device_register()?
>>
> 
> Not only. I noticed that another put_device under label "Error:".
> 

That label is called when we failed to add the kobject to its parent.
It just puts the parent of the device. I don't think it has anything
to do with us put_device()-ing the actual device too.

-- 
Regards,
Levente Kurusa
--
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/