On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 08:49:26AM +0100, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
> Hi Dmitry
>
> On Sun, 24 Feb 2013, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
>
> > Even if bus is not hot-pluggable, the devices can be unbound from the
> > driver via sysfs, so we should not be using __exit annotations on
> > remove()
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 08:49:26AM +0100, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
Hi Dmitry
On Sun, 24 Feb 2013, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
Even if bus is not hot-pluggable, the devices can be unbound from the
driver via sysfs, so we should not be using __exit annotations on
remove() methods. The
Hi Dmitry
On Sun, 24 Feb 2013, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> Even if bus is not hot-pluggable, the devices can be unbound from the
> driver via sysfs, so we should not be using __exit annotations on
> remove() methods. The only exception is drivers registered with
> platform_driver_probe() which
Even if bus is not hot-pluggable, the devices can be unbound from the
driver via sysfs, so we should not be using __exit annotations on
remove() methods. The only exception is drivers registered with
platform_driver_probe() which specifically disables sysfs bind/unbind
attributes.
Signed-off-by:
Even if bus is not hot-pluggable, the devices can be unbound from the
driver via sysfs, so we should not be using __exit annotations on
remove() methods. The only exception is drivers registered with
platform_driver_probe() which specifically disables sysfs bind/unbind
attributes.
Signed-off-by:
Hi Dmitry
On Sun, 24 Feb 2013, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
Even if bus is not hot-pluggable, the devices can be unbound from the
driver via sysfs, so we should not be using __exit annotations on
remove() methods. The only exception is drivers registered with
platform_driver_probe() which
6 matches
Mail list logo
