On Wed, 12 Apr 2017, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> >> Maybe... But I can't shake the feeling that Greg KH would strongly
> >> disagree. Hasn't he said, many times in the past, that any dynamically
> >> allocated device structure _must_ have a real release routine?
> >> usb_udc_nop_release() doesn't qualify.
> >
> > Aw, I wanted to publically yell at someone like the kernel documentation
> > says I am allowed to do so if anyone does such a foolish thing :)
>
> heh, except that we're not dynamically allocating struct device at all
> :-) Here's what we have for most UDCs (net2280.c included):
>
> struct my_udc {
> struct gadget gadget;
> [...]
> };
>
> probe()
> {
> struct my_udc *u;
>
> u = kzalloc(sizeof(*u), GFP_KERNEL);
> [...]
> return 0;
> }
Allow me to point out that the struct device is embedded inside the
struct gadget (actually struct usb_gadget) embedded inside the struct
my_udc, which _is_ dynamically allocated. Therefore the struct device
is located in dynamically allocated memory.
> Now, if this kzalloc() would be replaced with devm_kzalloc() wouldn't
> this result on a functionally equivalent execution to the patch I
> proposed above?
It would, and it would be equally wrong.
Alan Stern
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
