Re: [RFC] kobject: add kobject_init_ng and kobject_init_and_add functions

On Fri, Nov 30, 2007 at 04:19:53PM -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
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.

Ok, how about this:
void kobject_init(struct kobject *kobj, struct ktype *ktype);

and then:
int kobject_add(struct kobject *kobj, struct kobject *parent, const char *fmt, ...);

After we call kobject_init() we HAVE to call kobject_put() to clean up
properly. So, if kobject_add() fails, we still need to clean up with
kobject_put();

That means we _can_ create a:
int kobject_init_and_add(struct kobject *kobj, struct ktype *ktype, struct kobject *parent, const char *fmt, ...);

and if that fails, then again, you have to call kobject_put() to clean
things up, right?

Does this look sane?

thanks,

greg k-h
-
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/

Relevant Pages