Re: [PATCH] drivers: base: core: Removed superfluous calls to put_device in device_destroy and to kobject deletion functions in device_del.

2013-07-21 Thread Greg KH
On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 11:34:59AM -0400, David Graham White wrote: > When device_destroy is called and the device's embedded kobject may be > removed, > this would occur with the call to put_device in device_unregister. Further, > put_device should take care of cleaning up th

[PATCH] drivers: base: core: Removed superfluous calls to put_device in device_destroy and to kobject deletion functions in device_del.

2013-07-21 Thread David Graham White
When device_destroy is called and the device's embedded kobject may be removed, this would occur with the call to put_device in device_unregister. Further, put_device should take care of cleaning up the kobject without the need to call kobject_del indepenedently in device_del. Signed-o

Re: device_destroy

2007-02-09 Thread James Simmons
> > While porting over a few class_devices I discovered a problem with > > device_destroy. It uses a dev_t which several classes don't use. > > Should all classes require a dev_t or should we just pass in the device > > itself? > > As you don't hav

Re: device_destroy

2007-02-08 Thread Greg KH
On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 03:51:08PM +, James Simmons wrote: > > While porting over a few class_devices I discovered a problem with > device_destroy. It uses a dev_t which several classes don't use. > Should all classes require a dev_t or should we just pass in the device

device_destroy

2007-02-08 Thread James Simmons
While porting over a few class_devices I discovered a problem with device_destroy. It uses a dev_t which several classes don't use. Should all classes require a dev_t or should we just pass in the device itself? - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kern