Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 6 Oct 2006 13:46:52 +0200 (CEST) | From | Jaroslav Kysela <> | Subject | Re: [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/
| |