2013-12-04 08:38, Chen, Gong: > On Tue, Dec 03, 2013 at 06:01:50PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote: >> Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2013 18:01:50 +0100 >> From: Borislav Petkov <b...@alien8.de> >> To: "Chen, Gong" <gong.c...@linux.intel.com> >> Cc: Levente Kurusa <le...@linux.com>, Ingo Molnar <mi...@kernel.org>, >> Thomas Gleixner <t...@linutronix.de>, Tony Luck <tony.l...@intel.com>, "H. >> Peter Anvin" <h...@zytor.com>, x...@kernel.org, EDAC >> <linux-e...@vger.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org> >> Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: mcheck: call put_device on device_register failure >> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) >> >> Can you please fix your >> >> Mail-Followup-To: >> >> header? It is impossible to reply to your emails without fiddling with >> the To: and Cc: by hand which gets very annoying over time. > > I add some configs in my muttrc. Hope it works. > >> >> On Mon, Dec 02, 2013 at 09:23:30PM -0500, Chen, Gong wrote: >>> I have some concerns about it. if device_register is failed, it will >>> backtraces all kinds of conditions automatically, including put_device >>> definately. So do we really need an extra put_device when it returns >>> failure? >> >> Do you mean the "done:" label in device_add() which does put_device() >> and which gets called by device_register()? >> > > Not only. I noticed that another put_device under label "Error:". >
That label is called when we failed to add the kobject to its parent. It just puts the parent of the device. I don't think it has anything to do with us put_device()-ing the actual device too. -- Regards, Levente Kurusa -- 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/
