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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
