From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755236Ab3ETCnj (ORCPT ); Sun, 19 May 2013 22:43:39 -0400 Received: from intranet.asianux.com ([58.214.24.6]:37122 "EHLO intranet.asianux.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755172Ab3ETCni (ORCPT ); Sun, 19 May 2013 22:43:38 -0400 X-Spam-Score: -100.8 Message-ID: <51998DA8.70609@asianux.com> Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 10:42:48 +0800 From: Chen Gang User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130110 Thunderbird/17.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Greg Kroah-Hartman CC: Ming Lei , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [Consult] Why need we call device_remove_file() firstly before call device_unregister() ? References: <5195C39F.9010101@asianux.com> <5199765F.5000905@asianux.com> <20130520014506.GA2201@kroah.com> <51998699.4080202@asianux.com> <20130520022016.GA2945@kroah.com> In-Reply-To: <20130520022016.GA2945@kroah.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 05/20/2013 10:20 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 10:12:41AM +0800, Chen Gang wrote: >> > 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. > Asking random questions on lkml, and relying on the fact that no one > else happens to say anything, is not any judge as to if the answer is > correct at all. > OK, I can understand, now, thank you for your reply. And I wish, we can provide the confirmation of all related questions about Linux kernel, in the future, > In fact, just asking questions on lkml has a very low chance of ever > getting a correct answer, given that the people that usually do know the > answer to these types of things are usually: > 1) not reading lkml because they are busy doing real work I should understand, they have no duty to have to reply the related mail, especially every members already have their own work (and normally, they are really busy). > 2) annoyed by questions that are easily answered by themselves by > either: > a) reading the code I have done, so I need not worry about this item. :-) > b) writing a simple example module and testing it out yourself > Precisely, I did not do it firstly. It seems I should do it firstly (although, at least now, I do not think it will get any valuable result for our this case) > > Good luck, > OK, 'Lucky' is really the first important !! I should continue to analyze this question, independent this 'consult' mail. Thanks. -- Chen Gang Asianux Corporation