lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Oct]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [Alsa-devel] [PATCH] Driver core: Don't ignore error returns from probing
On Fri, 6 Oct 2006, Cornelia Huck wrote:

> On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 11:41:05 +0200 (CEST),
> Jaroslav Kysela <perex@suse.cz> wrote:
>
> > > Hm, I don't think we should call device_release_driver if
> > > bus_attach_device failed (and I think calling bus_remove_device if
> > > bus_attach_device failed is unintuitive). I did a patch that added a
> > > function which undid just the things bus_add_device did (here:
> > > http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=115816560424389&w=2),
> > > which unfortunately got lost somewhere... (I'll rebase and resend.)
> >
> > Yes, but it might be better to check dev->is_registered flag in
> > bus_remove_device() before device_release_driver() call to save some code,
> > rather than reuse most of code in bus_delete_device().
>
> If we undid things (symlinks et al.) in the order we added them, we can
> factor out bus_delete_device() from bus_remove_device() and avoid both
> code duplication and calling bus_remove_device() if bus_attach_device()
> failed. Something like the patch below (untested).

It looks better, but I think that having only one function with if
(is_registered) saves a few bytes of instruction memory. Anyway, I do not
feel myself to judge what's the best.

Jaroslav

-----
Jaroslav Kysela <perex@suse.cz>
Linux Kernel Sound Maintainer
ALSA Project, SUSE Labs
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2006-10-06 13:49    [W:0.103 / U:0.116 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site