On Wed, 2007-11-28 at 16:52 +0100, Cornelia Huck wrote:
quoted text
> On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 13:35:54 +0100,
> Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@vrfy.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, 2007-11-28 at 10:01 +0100, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > > On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 15:02:52 -0800, Greg KH <greg@kroah.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > > Among other things, kobject_init() sets the kobject's reference count to
> > > > one.  Calling kobject_init() is not sufficient, however. Kobject users
> > > > must, at a minimum, set the name of the kobject; this is the name that will
> > > > be used in sysfs entries. 
> > > 
> > > Unless they don't register their kobject. (But they should always set a
> > > name anyway to avoid funny debug messages, so it is probably a good
> > > idea to call this a "must").
> > 
> > Yeah, we should require it. And kobject_cleanup() needs to be called to
> > free the allocated name, if the object is not already added and needs to
> > be deleted (common in rewinding on error).
> 
> Always using kobject_put() should take care of that.

Ok, so we can always require a kobject_put() after a kobject_init(), to
cleanup what happened after _init() and before _add()?

quoted text
> > Btw, do you have a good example for unregistered/unnamed kobjects?
> 
> Unfortunately not (I can only think of devices that might never be
> registered).

This is good, we should just get rid of that use case, it seems it
doesn't make any sense to use kobjects which will never be registered.

Thanks,
Kay

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