public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Chen Gang <gang.chen@asianux.com>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc: Ming Lei <tom.leiming@gmail.com>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Consult] Why need we call device_remove_file() firstly before call device_unregister() ?
Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 10:12:41 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <51998699.4080202@asianux.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130520014506.GA2201@kroah.com>

On 05/20/2013 09:45 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 09:03:27AM +0800, Chen Gang wrote:
>> > On 05/18/2013 07:06 PM, Ming Lei wrote:
>>> > > Hi,
>>> > > 
>>> > > On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 1:43 PM, Chen Gang <gang.chen@asianux.com> wrote:
>>>> > >> Hello All:
>>>> > >>
>>>> > >> I searched 'arch/*' and 'drivers/*' sub-directory, all of them are 'obey
>>>> > >> this rule', even in device_unregister() itself, it also firstly calls
>>>> > >> device_remove_file(), then call kobject_del().
>>>> > >>
>>>> > >> But after read the related code (fs/sysfs/*, drivers/base/core.c), it
>>>> > >> seems kobject_del() -> sysfs_remove_dir() which will release all related
>>>> > >> things (can instead of device_remove_file()).
>>>> > >>
>>>> > >> So in fact, we need not call device_remove_file() before call
>>>> > >> device_unregister(), is it correct ?
>>> > > 
>>> > > Looks it is correct but it is a bit implicit.
>>> > > 
>> > 
>> > If really no other members reply within a week, we should treat your
>> > opinion (or suggestion) as the final result conclusion within
>> > linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org.  :-)
> I have no idea what you mean by this.
> 

I mean that if no reply by any other members within a week, I will know
it is correct that "we need not call device_remove_file() firstly before
call device_unregister()" (at least, one member's reply supports this
conclusion).

I find this 'question' when discussing a patch with another members in
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, I have read the related code and also have
searched with google, but can not find the result, so I want to consult
it in linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org.

And I think, this 'question' is not suitable to give a test firstly,
because the test plan need be discussed firstly (or the test result
means nothing).


This time, I send the 'consult' mail to 'All', not to specific members.


Thanks.
-- 
Chen Gang

Asianux Corporation

  reply	other threads:[~2013-05-20  2:13 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2013-05-17  5:43 [Consult] Why need we call device_remove_file() firstly before call device_unregister() ? Chen Gang
2013-05-18 11:06 ` Ming Lei
2013-05-20  1:03   ` Chen Gang
2013-05-20  1:45     ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2013-05-20  2:12       ` Chen Gang [this message]
2013-05-20  2:20         ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2013-05-20  2:42           ` Chen Gang

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=51998699.4080202@asianux.com \
    --to=gang.chen@asianux.com \
    --cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=tom.leiming@gmail.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox