Re: [PATCH] base/core.c: improve comment of the function device_find_child()
On Friday 12 April 2013 14:51:25 Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 01:59:32PM +0200, Federico Vaga wrote: > > Signed-off-by: Federico Vaga > > --- > > > > drivers/base/core.c | 4 > > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/base/core.c b/drivers/base/core.c > > index 016312437..eb0c6ea 100644 > > --- a/drivers/base/core.c > > +++ b/drivers/base/core.c > > @@ -1372,6 +1372,10 @@ int device_for_each_child(struct device *parent, > > void *data,> > > * if it does. If the callback returns non-zero and a reference to the > > * current device can be obtained, this function will return to the > > caller > > * and not iterate over any more devices. > > > > + * > > + * NOTE: internally, the function does get_device() on the retrieved > > child. + * It is duty of the caller performing a put_device() on the > > retrieved + * child device when the caller finishes to work on it. > > > > */ > > Why not just use the same wording that class_find_device() has, which is > simpler and easier to understand (IMHO)? Mh, yes. You are right. I'll send a new patch -- Federico Vaga -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH] base/core.c: improve comment of the function device_find_child()
On Friday 12 April 2013 14:51:25 Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 01:59:32PM +0200, Federico Vaga wrote: Signed-off-by: Federico Vaga federico.v...@gmail.com --- drivers/base/core.c | 4 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+) diff --git a/drivers/base/core.c b/drivers/base/core.c index 016312437..eb0c6ea 100644 --- a/drivers/base/core.c +++ b/drivers/base/core.c @@ -1372,6 +1372,10 @@ int device_for_each_child(struct device *parent, void *data, * if it does. If the callback returns non-zero and a reference to the * current device can be obtained, this function will return to the caller * and not iterate over any more devices. + * + * NOTE: internally, the function does get_device() on the retrieved child. + * It is duty of the caller performing a put_device() on the retrieved + * child device when the caller finishes to work on it. */ Why not just use the same wording that class_find_device() has, which is simpler and easier to understand (IMHO)? Mh, yes. You are right. I'll send a new patch -- Federico Vaga -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH] base/core.c: improve comment of the function device_find_child()
On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 01:59:32PM +0200, Federico Vaga wrote: > Signed-off-by: Federico Vaga > --- > drivers/base/core.c | 4 > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/base/core.c b/drivers/base/core.c > index 016312437..eb0c6ea 100644 > --- a/drivers/base/core.c > +++ b/drivers/base/core.c > @@ -1372,6 +1372,10 @@ int device_for_each_child(struct device *parent, void > *data, > * if it does. If the callback returns non-zero and a reference to the > * current device can be obtained, this function will return to the caller > * and not iterate over any more devices. > + * > + * NOTE: internally, the function does get_device() on the retrieved child. > + * It is duty of the caller performing a put_device() on the retrieved > + * child device when the caller finishes to work on it. > */ Why not just use the same wording that class_find_device() has, which is simpler and easier to understand (IMHO)? thanks, greg k-h -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH] base/core.c: improve comment of the function device_find_child()
On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 01:59:32PM +0200, Federico Vaga wrote: Signed-off-by: Federico Vaga federico.v...@gmail.com --- drivers/base/core.c | 4 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+) diff --git a/drivers/base/core.c b/drivers/base/core.c index 016312437..eb0c6ea 100644 --- a/drivers/base/core.c +++ b/drivers/base/core.c @@ -1372,6 +1372,10 @@ int device_for_each_child(struct device *parent, void *data, * if it does. If the callback returns non-zero and a reference to the * current device can be obtained, this function will return to the caller * and not iterate over any more devices. + * + * NOTE: internally, the function does get_device() on the retrieved child. + * It is duty of the caller performing a put_device() on the retrieved + * child device when the caller finishes to work on it. */ Why not just use the same wording that class_find_device() has, which is simpler and easier to understand (IMHO)? thanks, greg k-h -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
