[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070426171247.181bc335@gondolin.boeblingen.de.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 17:12:47 +0200
From: Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@...ibm.com>
To: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Cc: Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>, Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFD] alternative kobject release wait mechanism
On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 10:58:45 -0400 (EDT),
Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu> wrote:
> > > > The remove() method must also unset driver_data.
> > >
> > > It doesn't really have to. The driver core could do it.
> >
> > I think it is more consistent if the driver takes care of the fields
> > specifically designed for its usage.
>
> Yes. However if the driver forgets to clear the field it shouldn't cause
> a warning. After all, there won't be any harm; the next driver to bind
> to the device will just overwrite the driver_data anyway.
Agreed, but it is still a good practice and should be recommended.
> > Yes. Especially since the "gone"-field may be contained in that
> > embedding structure if the subsystem controls it.
>
> No, no! The "gone" flag must be in the private data structure. If it
> were in a container of the device structure, then it could be overwritten
> when a different driver binds to the device.
Argl, thinko again. You're right, of course.
-
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