2017-12-21 10:37 GMT+08:00 weiping zhang <zwp10...@gmail.com>:
> 2017-12-20 23:53 GMT+08:00 Cornelia Huck <coh...@redhat.com>:
>> On Wed, 20 Dec 2017 12:26:25 +0800
>> weiping zhang <zwp10...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> [you used a different mail address in your From: than in your s-o-b:;
>> same for the other patches]
a wrong setting of my email client, correct it next time, thanks.
>>> In order to make caller do a simple cleanup, we split device_register
>>> into device_initialize and device_add. device_initialize always sucess,
>>
>> s/success/succeeds/
>>
>>> the caller can always use put_device when fail to register virtio_device
>>
>> "so the caller can always use put_device when register_virtio_device
>> failed,"
>>
>>> no matter fail at ida_simple_get or at device_add.
>>
>> "no matter whether it failed..."
>>
>>> + *
>>> + * If an error occurs, the caller must use put_device, instead of kfree,
>>> because
>>> + * device_initialize and device_add will increase @dev->dev's reference
>>> count.
>>
>> That's not correct: It's not because of device_add increasing the
>> reference count (it releases it again on failure), but because another
>> code path may have obtained a reference.
>>
>> What about:
>>
>> "On error, the caller must call put_device on &@dev->dev (and not
>> kfree), as another code path may have obtained a reference to @dev."
>>
> It's good to understand, further more dev->name may has a bit mem leak.
> anyway, I'll correct all comments at V5. Thanks very much.
>>> + *
>>> + * Returns: 0 on suceess, -error on failure
>>> + */
>>> int register_virtio_device(struct virtio_device *dev)
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
