Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S265833AbUFIXUX (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Jun 2004 19:20:23 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S265957AbUFIXUX (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Jun 2004 19:20:23 -0400 Received: from mail.kroah.org ([65.200.24.183]:53148 "EHLO perch.kroah.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S265833AbUFIXUU (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Jun 2004 19:20:20 -0400 Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2004 16:19:20 -0700 From: Greg KH To: Dmitry Torokhov Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Couple of sysfs patches Message-ID: <20040609231920.GA9132@kroah.com> References: <200406090221.24739.dtor_core@ameritech.net> <200406091732.28684.dtor_core@ameritech.net> <20040609224548.GA1393@kroah.com> <200406091754.23303.dtor_core@ameritech.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200406091754.23303.dtor_core@ameritech.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1540 Lines: 37 On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 05:54:23PM -0500, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > On Wednesday 09 June 2004 05:45 pm, Greg KH wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 05:32:28PM -0500, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > > Actually, I myself want someting else - > > > > > > int platform_device_register_simple(struct platform_device **ppdev, > > > const char *name, int id) > > > > > > It will allocate platform device, set name and id and release function to > > > platform_device_simple_release which in turn will be hidden from outside > > > world. Since the function does allocation for user is should prevent the > > > abuse you were concerned about. > > > > Ok, that sounds good. I'll take patches for that kind of interface. > > > > But have the function return the pointer, like the class_simple > > functions work. Not the ** like you just specified. > > I want to do both allocation + registration in one shot and I knowing > the error code may be important to users. That's fine to do. Again, look at how the class_simple_create() function works. If an error happens, convert it to ERR_PTR() and return that. The caller can check it with IS_ERR() and friends. > Why do you oppose having double pointers in interface? It's messy, and with the ERR_PTR() macros, not needed :) thanks, greg k-h - 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/