From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Greg KH Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] uio: Simplify the lifetime logic of struct uio_device. Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 12:04:03 -0800 Message-ID: <20150126200403.GA32312@kroah.com> References: <1421434179-3650-1-git-send-email-mandeep.sandhu@cyaninc.com> <1421434179-3650-2-git-send-email-mandeep.sandhu@cyaninc.com> <20150125123316.GA9141@kroah.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: hjk@hansjkoch.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org To: Mandeep Sandhu Return-path: Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org ([140.211.169.12]:44091 "EHLO mail.linuxfoundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751631AbbAZUEF (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Jan 2015 15:04:05 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 11:57:30AM -0800, Mandeep Sandhu wrote: > >> + > >> + ret = kobject_set_name(&idev->device.kobj, "uio%d", idev->minor); > > > > dev_set_name()? > > There's another instance of use of kobject_set_name in > uio_major_init(). Should I change that too ,or that should be done in > a new (unrelated) patch? Unrelated please, one logical change per patch is the rules.