From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Luben Tuikov Subject: Re: [PATCH] introduce scsi_host_alloc Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2003 16:30:10 -0400 Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <3EE0F9D2.2070907@rogers.com> References: <20030606080103.GC18838@lst.de> <3EE0F86B.4060908@rogers.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from fep01-mail.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com ([66.185.86.71]:41663 "EHLO fep01-mail.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262269AbTFFUQg (ORCPT ); Fri, 6 Jun 2003 16:16:36 -0400 In-Reply-To: <3EE0F86B.4060908@rogers.com> List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Luben Tuikov Cc: Christoph Hellwig , James.Bottomley@steeleye.com, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org Luben Tuikov wrote: > > Why don't you call this scsi_host_free() to complement scsi_host_alloc()? > Why do you need to reveal implementation by naming it scsi_host_put()? > As far as the caller of scsi_host_put() is concerned they MUST NOT > dereference the host thereafter, so you can safely call it > scsi_host_free(). > (_When_ it is actually it is freed is what is being hidded as > implementation.) Last sentence was meant to be: "_When_ it is actually freed is what is being hidden as implementation." -- Luben