From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933025AbXGMFDX (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 Jul 2007 01:03:23 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751157AbXGMFDQ (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 Jul 2007 01:03:16 -0400 Received: from py-out-1112.google.com ([64.233.166.177]:1451 "EHLO py-out-1112.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751239AbXGMFDP (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 Jul 2007 01:03:15 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:x-enigmail-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=a1tk2V5uI5lfhUg3urKaqwmA+tsmssuMmcj1GlZizc6RgYIGtC0vKig08QEbnYSC3jDq7/gfnv+EeenzNxrLZPh0BTFkpHKMEVo9Y1m/vLCJ1sYv1vaT8Izm96BtIgxqTBrEFpaUN5G0hmx621QxxKnk+MtAgeBFU55DyOJY3ew= Message-ID: <4697078D.4050601@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 14:03:09 +0900 From: Tejun Heo User-Agent: Icedove 1.5.0.10 (X11/20070307) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Satyam Sharma CC: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / ???? , gregkh@suse.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 24/61] sysfs: make sysfs_put() ignore NULL sd References: <11841968512510-git-send-email-gregkh@suse.de> <20070712.085047.37780825.yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org> <20070711235529.GA7485@suse.de> <20070712.100617.14203407.yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org> <46959958.6080005@gmail.com> <4696FDDC.7050503@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4696FDDC.7050503@gmail.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.94.2.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hello, forgot one thing. Tejun Heo wrote: >> I can't believe it should be so difficult to understand this. How can any >> caller (that first did a xxx_get() on that shared object) land up with that >> object getting NULL _from under it_ unless some logic is wrong >> somewhere? And instead of flagging this broken logic, the proposed >> change here would hide it. I agree with you about get(). Allowing NULL argument doesn't really help anything. It only increases the chance of getting things wrong. I'm all for not allowing NULL argument to get(). For put(), as I wrote before, I think allowing NULL has some advantages and I don't care either way as long as it's not confusing. The 'not confusing' part is way more important to me than advantages of either way. -- tejun