Re: [PATCH 10/14] scsi: osd: fix device_register() error handling

Greg KH
2010-09-20T15:10:29Z

On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 06:58:17AM -0500, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Sun, 2010-09-19 at 16:26 +0200, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 04:55:07PM +0400, Vasiliy Kulikov wrote:
> > > If device_register() fails then call put_device().
> > > See comment to device_register.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Vasiliy Kulikov <segooon@gmail.com>
> > > ---
> > > compile tested.
> > >
> > > drivers/scsi/osd/osd_uld.c | 4 +++-
> > > 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/scsi/osd/osd_uld.c b/drivers/scsi/osd/osd_uld.c
> > > index cefb2c0..3e0edc2 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/scsi/osd/osd_uld.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/scsi/osd/osd_uld.c
> > > @@ -474,7 +474,7 @@ static int osd_probe(struct device *dev)
> > > error = device_register(&oud->class_dev);
> > > if (error) {
> > > OSD_ERR("device_register failed => %d\n", error);
> > > - goto err_put_cdev;
> > > + goto err_put_device;
> > > }
> > >
> > > get_device(&oud->class_dev);
> > > @@ -482,6 +482,8 @@ static int osd_probe(struct device *dev)
> > > OSD_INFO("osd_probe %s\n", disk->disk_name);
> > > return 0;
> > >
> >
> > Hm... So if device_register() fails then we should always call
> > device_put()? It seems like a lot of existing code does that but I
> > hadn't realized until now that that is how it works.
>
> Heh, it wasn't a bug when most of the code was written. It became a bug
> when dev_set_name() was added because now the storage allocated for the
> name has to be freed with a put. Previous to this, the advice was just
> to free the device if device_register() failed.
>
> > Why can't the device_put() just be added inside the device_register() so
> > the unwinding works automatically?
>
> Since Greg and Kay didn't actually alter any of the device_register()
> failure paths, this does sound to be the better course of action ... of
> course, every device_register() introduced after the dev_set_name()
> change may call put_device() on the cleanup path ... someone needs to
> check.

Yes, this patch series should not be needed at all. If there's a
problem with the driver core here, it should be fixed, not forcing the
issue to all of the individual callers.

Vasiliy, can you please do that instead?

thanks,

greg k-h