linux-kernel - Re: [Consult] Why need we call device_remove_file() firstly before call device

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <51998DA8.70609@asianux.com>
Date:	Mon, 20 May 2013 10:42:48 +0800
From:	Chen Gang <gang.chen@...anux.com>
To:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
CC:	Ming Lei <tom.leiming@...il.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Consult] Why need we call device_remove_file() firstly before
 call device_unregister() ?

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@...r.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@...r.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
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/