[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090312213311.GB31042@ldl.fc.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 15:33:11 -0600
From: Alex Chiang <achiang@...com>
To: Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@...ibm.com>
Cc: Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>, Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...il.com>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org,
tj@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH, RFC] sysfs: only allow one scheduled removal callback
per kobj
* Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@...ibm.com>:
> On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 Alex Chiang <achiang@...com> wrote:
>
> > * Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>:
> > > On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > > > (For the original oops, I'd rather solve the problem by
> > > > making sure the caller doesn't trigger removal several
> > > > times - should probably be less code than the proposed
> > > > patch?)
> > >
> > > Any ideas on how to do this?
> >
> > I still think the original patch I proposed is the right
> > answer.
>
> How about just putting a marker on your device that is going to
> be unregistered and refusing to schedule it again? (This marker
> could also be used to block other undesired actions; that's
> what ccwgroup does.)
I looked at what ccwgroup does, and you're right that it's a
smaller patch, and easy to implement.
But I still think that it makes more sense to fix the underlying
sysfs_schedule_callback() interface, rather than asking all the
callers to implement their own exclusion mechanisms.
Thanks.
/ac
--
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