| 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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 09:03:27 +0800 From: Chen Gang <gang.chen@...anux.com> To: Ming Lei <tom.leiming@...il.com> CC: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> Subject: Re: [Consult] Why need we call device_remove_file() firstly before call device_unregister() ? On 05/18/2013 07:06 PM, Ming Lei wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 1:43 PM, Chen Gang <gang.chen@...anux.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@...r.kernel.org. :-) 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists