[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.0905281349490.4059-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 13:51:39 -0400 (EDT)
From: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
cc: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>,
Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>,
Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@...y.org>,
SCSI development list <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>,
Kernel development list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@...ibm.com>,
<linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...stanetworks.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 25/20] sysfs: Only support removing emtpy sysfs directories.
On Thu, 28 May 2009, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu> writes:
>
> > There's another point to consider. If you do accept my argument that
> > empty targets can be removed from visibility regardless of the host's
> > state, then this removal races with addition of a new child. Since
> > removal involves calling device_del(), it can't be protected by the
> > host lock. Instead we'd have to use a mutex to protect both target
> > addition and target removal.
>
> Careful. Holding a lock over device_del is an easy and hidden way
> to trigger a rare deadlocks.
Your point is well taken. In addition, I don't really like the idea of
forcing device removal to wait for some other device to be added.
I'll work around the problem somehow... A short polling loop shoud do
the job.
Alan Stern
--
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