linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] driver core: check bus->match without holding device lock

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 25 Mar 2009 18:13:51 +0800
From:	Ming Lei <tom.leiming@...il.com>
To:	Guennadi Liakhovetski <g.liakhovetski@....de>
Cc:	kay.sievers@...y.org, Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, arjan@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] driver core: check bus->match without holding device lock

>> > Now, without .match() no probing is done. Is this an intended change and
>> > soc-camera has to be fixed or is this a bug?
>>
>> It is not a driver-core bug, and soc-camera should be fixed.
>
> So, you're saying this used to be a bug and it has been fixed by this
> patch? Then why isn't this mentioned in the commit message? The commit
> text seems to suggest, that this patch shouldn't introduce any change in
> behaviour, but it does. So, before .match == NULL lead to .probe() being
> called, and now it doesn't anymore?

Where is soc-camera  driver in kernel tree?  Which bus  is soc-camera
device (driver) attached to ?
Why doesn't soc-camera  driver  have a match method?

Thanks!


-- 
Lei Ming
--
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/