Greg KH <greg@kroah.com> wrote:Certainly I have no objections, I'm glad it was useful. A few little things... You don't keep this promise - bet you thought we wouldn't notice... Actually I guess you do, in the "creating simple kobjects" section. When you get to that point, you should mention that this is a situation where standalone kobjects make sense. Given that there are quite a few standalone kobjects created by this patch set (kernel_kobj, security_kobj, s390_kobj, etc.), the "(even unknown)" should probably come out. *The* UIO code, presumably. That should be "struct uio_mem", I think. Is setting the name mandatory now, or are there still places where kobjects (which do not appear in sysfs) do have - and do not need - a name? "always be allocated from the heap"? So just how should severely should we mock kobject maintainers who can't spell "mercilessly"? :) Can we try that one again? - A kset can provide a set of default attributes for all kobjects which belong to it. Presumably the latter way is not recommended; I would either say so or not mention this possibility at all. jon -
| Greg KH | [GIT PATCH] driver core patches against 2.6.24 |
| Hiten Pandya | Re: up? (emacs docbook xml ide) |
| Jan Engelhardt | intel iommu (Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23) |
| Tarkan Erimer | Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 |
git: | |
| Jarek Poplawski | Re: [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
| David Miller | [GIT]: Networking |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 27/37] dccp: Integration of dynamic feature activation - part 2 (server side) |
| Daniel Eischen | Re: error with thread |
