Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932162AbWJFLqz (ORCPT ); Fri, 6 Oct 2006 07:46:55 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932192AbWJFLqz (ORCPT ); Fri, 6 Oct 2006 07:46:55 -0400 Received: from gate.perex.cz ([85.132.177.35]:23515 "EHLO gate.perex.cz") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932162AbWJFLqy (ORCPT ); Fri, 6 Oct 2006 07:46:54 -0400 Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2006 13:46:52 +0200 (CEST) From: Jaroslav Kysela X-X-Sender: perex@tm8103.perex-int.cz To: Cornelia Huck Cc: Alan Stern , Andrew Morton , ALSA development , Takashi Iwai , Greg KH , LKML , Jiri Kosina , Castet Matthieu Subject: Re: [Alsa-devel] [PATCH] Driver core: Don't ignore error returns from probing In-Reply-To: <20061006131443.473c203c@gondolin.boeblingen.de.ibm.com> Message-ID: References: <20061005175852.GC15180@suse.de> <20061006095334.3cdebcc0@gondolin.boeblingen.de.ibm.com> <20061006131443.473c203c@gondolin.boeblingen.de.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1585 Lines: 36 On Fri, 6 Oct 2006, Cornelia Huck wrote: > On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 11:41:05 +0200 (CEST), > Jaroslav Kysela 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 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/