Re: [PATCH v2 WIP 1/2] parport: add device-model to parport subsystem

[Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>]

On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 12:20:26PM +0530, Sudip Mukherjee wrote:
> > What is the point of the check function really?  The name isn't clear.
> yes, i am a bit blunt in thinking of new names, i hope you have noticed
> that in my naming of the labels .. :)
> 
> as the name was not sufficient i mentioned it in the comments. This check
> function will receive the device details and will decide if it wants to
> connect to that device. If it wants to connect then it registers its device
> and mark the port as claimed.
> Infact, on second thought, i will return the success or error from check,
> then if the driver has found the device to connect then we can stop the
> iteration there.
> 
> maybe a better name can be check_port() ? 

match() or match_port() something.

> > 
> > Since it always returns zero that means we loop through all the devices
> > and then returns NULL.  It feels like a function called
> > bus_find_device() should find something.  We have bus_for_each_dev() if
> > we just want to iterate.
> > 
> yes, bus_for_each_dev() will be better here. thanks.

If we're match then bus_find_device() is correct.  It's just that's not
what v2 did.

> 
> > > +
> > > +/*
> <snip>	
> > > +
> > > +	par_dev->name = devname;
> > 
> > The existing code is buggy here as we discussed previously.  Could you
> > just fix that before we do anything else?  It's freaking me out.
> 
> quoting from your previous mail:
> >My concern is that it gets freed before we are done using it or something
> 
> here, i have modified that and we are no longer using the string passed
> as an argument. we have duplicated it using kstrdup and using that and
> it gets freed in free_pardevice().
> or am i missing something here?

Ah.  Ok.  Thanks.  I missed that and I don't think the patch has hit
linux-next yet.

regards,
dan carpenter