Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Tue, 7 May 2019 14:32:57 +0200 (CEST)
From:   Miroslav Benes <mbenes@suse.cz>
To:     Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>
cc:     Jiri Kosina <jikos@kernel.org>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>,
        Joe Lawrence <joe.lawrence@redhat.com>,
        Kamalesh Babulal <kamalesh@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        "Tobin C . Harding" <tobin@kernel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        live-patching@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] livepatch: Remove custom kobject state handling
In-Reply-To: <20190503132625.23442-2-pmladek@suse.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.LSU.2.21.1905071355430.7486@pobox.suse.cz>
References: <20190503132625.23442-1-pmladek@suse.com> <20190503132625.23442-2-pmladek@suse.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (LSU 202 2017-01-01)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, 3 May 2019, Petr Mladek wrote:

> kobject_init() always succeeds and sets the reference count to 1.
> It allows to always free the structures via kobject_put() and
> the related release callback.
> 
> Note that the custom kobject state handling was used only
> because we did not know that kobject_put() can and actually
> should get called even when kobject_init_and_add() fails.
> 
> The patch should not change the existing behavior.

Pity that the changelog does not describe the change from 
kobject_init_and_add() to two-stage kobject init (separate kobject_init() 
and kobject_add()).

Petr changed it, because now each member of new dynamic lists (created in 
klp_init_patch_early()) is initialized with kobject_init(), so we do not 
have to worry about calling kobject_put() (this is slightly different from 
kobj_added).

It would also be possible to retain kobject_init_and_add() and move it to 
klp_init_patch_early(), but it would be uglier in my opinion.

Miroslav