On Jan 11, 2008 4:23 PM, Cornelia Huck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 10:33:16 +0800,
> "Dave Young" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> > > > +struct device *class_find_device(struct class *class, void *data,
> > > > + int (*match)(struct device *, void *))
> > > > +{
> > > > + struct device *dev;
> > > > +
> > > > + if (!class)
> > > > + return NULL;
> > > > +
> > > > + mutex_lock(&class->mutex);
> > > > + list_for_each_entry(dev, &class->devices, node)
> > > > + if (match(dev, data) && get_device(dev))
> > >
> > > First get the reference and then drop it if the match function returns
> > > 0 to make this analogous to the other _find_device() functions?
> >
> > It's just like other _find_device() functions. Are these more get/put
> > really needed?
>
> The other _find_device() functions operate on klists, which means that
> there is an implicit get while the element is handled. This function
> operates on a normal list, which means that getting/putting the
> reference looks a bit different if we want the same effect.
>
Hi, you are right. Will be fixed.
Thanks.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
spi-devel-general mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spi-devel-general
