From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from sc8-sf-mx2-b.sourceforge.net ([10.3.1.92] helo=mail.sourceforge.net) by sc8-sf-list1.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 4.30) id 1Ez1s4-0000a4-VJ for user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 17 Jan 2006 17:12:20 -0800 Received: from mail.kroah.org ([69.55.234.183] helo=perch.kroah.org) by mail.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 4.44) id 1Ez1s3-0001nm-J0 for user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 17 Jan 2006 17:12:20 -0800 From: Greg KH Message-ID: <20060118011200.GA28086@kroah.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Subject: [uml-devel] Re: [PATCH 1/9] uml: avoid sysfs warning on hot-unplug Sender: user-mode-linux-devel-admin@lists.sourceforge.net Errors-To: user-mode-linux-devel-admin@lists.sourceforge.net List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: The user-mode Linux development list List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 17:12:00 -0800 To: akpm@osdl.org, Jeff Dike , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > From: Jeff Dike , Paolo 'Blaisorblade' Giarrusso > > Define a release method for the ubd and network driver so that sysfs doesn't > complain when one is removed via: What? No. The kernel is complaining for a reason, don't try to out-smart it. > > host $ uml_mconsole remove > > Done by Jeff around January for ubd only, later lost, then restored in his tree > - however I'm merging it now since there's no reason to leave this here. > > We don't need to do any cleanup in the new added method, because when hot-unplug > is done by uml_mconsole we already handle cleanup in mconsole infrastructure, > i.e. mc_device->remove (net_remove/ubd_remove), which is also the calling > method. Huh? You have 2 different release functions for the same object? And how do you know which one is correct? That does not sound right at all. Please fix this correctly. thanks, greg k-h ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=103432&bid=230486&dat=121642 _______________________________________________ User-mode-linux-devel mailing list User-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/user-mode-linux-devel From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932441AbWARBMT (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Jan 2006 20:12:19 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932442AbWARBMT (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Jan 2006 20:12:19 -0500 Received: from mail.kroah.org ([69.55.234.183]:53132 "EHLO perch.kroah.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932441AbWARBMT (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Jan 2006 20:12:19 -0500 Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 17:12:00 -0800 From: Greg KH To: akpm@osdl.org, Jeff Dike , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/9] uml: avoid sysfs warning on hot-unplug Message-ID: <20060118011200.GA28086@kroah.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > From: Jeff Dike , Paolo 'Blaisorblade' Giarrusso > > Define a release method for the ubd and network driver so that sysfs doesn't > complain when one is removed via: What? No. The kernel is complaining for a reason, don't try to out-smart it. > > host $ uml_mconsole remove > > Done by Jeff around January for ubd only, later lost, then restored in his tree > - however I'm merging it now since there's no reason to leave this here. > > We don't need to do any cleanup in the new added method, because when hot-unplug > is done by uml_mconsole we already handle cleanup in mconsole infrastructure, > i.e. mc_device->remove (net_remove/ubd_remove), which is also the calling > method. Huh? You have 2 different release functions for the same object? And how do you know which one is correct? That does not sound right at all. Please fix this correctly. thanks, greg k-h