Re: [RFC] kobject: add kobject_init_ng and kobject_init_and_add functions
- From: Alan Stern <stern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 16:19:53 -0500 (EST)
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007, Greg KH wrote:
My suggestion: Have kobject_init_ng() accept a ktype pointer but not a
parent or name. Instead, make kobject_add_ng() take the parent and
name (possibly a kset also). Then when kobject_init_and_add()
encounters an error, it shouldn't do a _put() -- the caller can either
do the _put() or just do a kfree().
Why not the parent for init()? Isn't it always known at that time?
I'll dig to be sure.
Specifying the parent during _add() is more logical, because a kobject
doesn't actually _do_ anything to the parent until it is registered in
the parent's directory. Or to put it another way, an unregistered
kobject can't have a parent in any meaningful sense so there's no point
specifying the parent in the _init() call.
It's really just a matter of taste.
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/
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: RTC wakealarm write-only, still has 644 permissions
- Next by Date: Re: RTC wakealarm write-only, still has 644 permissions
- Previous by thread: Re: [RFC] kobject: add kobject_init_ng and kobject_init_and_add functions
- Next by thread: Re: [RFC] kobject: add kobject_init_ng and kobject_init_and_add functions
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
