On Sun, 29 May 2011, Greg KH wrote:
Trust me, dig through the driver core and kobject model, it's tricky
to follow, but it's there. Or at least it was there the last time I
did this, that is why I documented it so that no one would have to
do that again and they could just easily follow the
On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 07:21:10AM -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
On Sun, 29 May 2011, Greg KH wrote:
Trust me, dig through the driver core and kobject model, it's tricky
to follow, but it's there. Or at least it was there the last time I
did this, that is why I documented it so that no
On Sun, 29 May 2011, Greg KH wrote:
On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 07:21:10AM -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
what is apparently *not* OK is to either call kfree() *before*
calling put_device(), or to call kfree() and nothing else upon a
failed device_register() call. some apparently broken
Hi Robert,
On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 5:15 PM, Robert P. J. Day rpj...@crashcourse.ca wrote:
from drivers/base/core.c, we have the fairly unambiguous advice:
* NOTE: _Never_ directly free @dev after calling this function, even
* if it returned an error! Always use put_device() to give up the
On Sat, 28 May 2011, Belisko Marek wrote:
Hi Robert,
On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 5:15 PM, Robert P. J. Day rpj...@crashcourse.ca
wrote:
from drivers/base/core.c, we have the fairly unambiguous advice:
* NOTE: _Never_ directly free @dev after calling this function, even
* if it
On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 6:29 PM, Robert P. J. Day rpj...@crashcourse.ca wrote:
On Sat, 28 May 2011, Belisko Marek wrote:
Hi Robert,
On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 5:15 PM, Robert P. J. Day rpj...@crashcourse.ca
wrote:
from drivers/base/core.c, we have the fairly unambiguous advice:
*
On Sat, 28 May 2011, Belisko Marek wrote:
On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 6:29 PM, Robert P. J. Day rpj...@crashcourse.ca
wrote:
i agree that there should be a put_device(dev-dev); statement
as you show above. however, i still don't see how this can be
just a stylistic improvement as you
On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 9:43 PM, Robert P. J. Day rpj...@crashcourse.ca wrote:
On Sat, 28 May 2011, Belisko Marek wrote:
On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 6:29 PM, Robert P. J. Day rpj...@crashcourse.ca
wrote:
i agree that there should be a put_device(dev-dev); statement
as you show above.
On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 06:00:10PM +0200, Belisko Marek wrote:
Hi Robert,
On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 5:15 PM, Robert P. J. Day rpj...@crashcourse.ca
wrote:
from drivers/base/core.c, we have the fairly unambiguous advice:
* NOTE: _Never_ directly free @dev after calling this function,
