[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20091002092025.GB4442@pengutronix.de>
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2009 11:20:25 +0200
From: Uwe Kleine-König
<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
To: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jaroslav Kysela <perex@...ex.cz>, alsa-devel@...a-project.org,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/34] don't use __devexit_p to wrap hal2_remove
Hello,
On Fri, Oct 02, 2009 at 11:02:56AM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> At Thu, 1 Oct 2009 10:53:55 +0200,
> Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 01, 2009 at 10:36:59AM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> > > At Thu, 1 Oct 2009 10:28:10 +0200,
> > > Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The function hal2_remove is defined using __exit, so don't use __devexit_p
> > > > but __exit_p to wrap it.
> > >
> > > I think it's the other way round. We should replace __exit with __devexit.
> > > Ditto for sound/mips/sgio2audio.c.
> > Actually both ways are possible. I choosed the alternative that doesn't
> > add bloat to the kernel. The cost is that the device isn't hotplugable,
> > but you can still unload the module to unbind the driver.
>
> Hm, is it really safe to set remove=NULL although the driver needs
> some work at unbinding? It looks like that unbind is allowed no
> matter whether remove is NULL or not. So, it would jus keeps stray
> resources, and it might conflict at the next bind.
I just tried that and you're right. IMHO that's a bug. Greg?
Best regards
Uwe
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
--
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