[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070418113506.06df2d21@gondolin.boeblingen.de.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 11:35:06 +0200
From: Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@...ibm.com>
To: Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com>
Cc: linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
Greg K-H <greg@...ah.com>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
dmitry.torokhov@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFD] alternative kobject release wait mechanism
On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 17:46:09 +0900,
Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com> wrote:
> It's debatable but I think things will be safer this way. If we wait by
> default, we are forced to check that all references are dropped and will
> have a stack dump indicating which object is causing problem when
> something goes wrong, which is better than silent object leaking and/or
> jumping to non-existent address way later.
I agree that oopsing is bad. However, lingering references are not
always coding errors. What if it will just take long for a reference to
be given up? You'd have a hanging device_unregister(), with no
particular gain.
>
> I personally think all driver interface should be made this way such
> that completion of unregister function guarantees no further access to
> the object or module. IMHO, it's more intuitive and easier to force
> correctness.
If we really did this, we should also provide a non-waiting alternative.
-
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