On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 17:04:40 +0100,
Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@vrfy.org> wrote:

quoted text
> On Thu, 2007-11-29 at 10:54 -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
> > On Thu, 29 Nov 2007, Kay Sievers wrote:
> > 
> > > > And if someone calls kobject_put() after kobject_init() to clean up,
> > > > their release function will not be called if they didn't set the ktype.
> > > > So the check really belongs into kobject_init() IMO.
> > 
> > Right.  And even though cleaning up no longer needs to drop a reference
> > to the kset, it still might need to free the kobject's name.  So for 
> > example, either of these sequences:
> > 
> > 	kobject_init();			kobject_set_name();
> > 	kobject_set_name();		kobject_init();
> > 	...				...
> > 	kobject_free();			kobject_free();
> > 
> > would leak memory.
> 
> Yeah, only the kobject_put() would free the name.
> 
> > In fact, if we were designing the kobject API from scratch, I'd suggest 
> > making the ktype value an argument to kobject_init() so that it 
> > _couldn't_ be omitted.
> 
> Sounds fine, maybe we should also pass the name along, so it will be
> obvious what happens here:
>   int kobject_init(struct kobject *kobj, struct kobj_type *type, const char *fmt, ...)

Agreed. Better don't hide too much.
-
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/