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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 08:15:08 +0900 From: Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org> To: Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de> Cc: Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Maciej Szmigiero <mhej@...pl>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, Anton Vorontsov <avorontsov@...mvista.com>, Uwe Kleine-K?nig <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Jonathan Cameron <jic23@....ac.uk>, Ben Nizette <bn@...sdigital.com> Subject: Re: [GPIO]implement sleeping GPIO chip removal On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 02:45:16PM -0800, Greg KH wrote: > On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 02:15:40PM -0700, Grant Likely wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 10:07:05PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > > I understand that it could be simplified by removing redundant code > > > > (as Grant Likely had suggested before), and moving it to completion > > > > interface instead of manipulating a task structure directly, but > > > > this doesn't mean that the whole GPIO code has to be rewritten just > > > > to add one functionality. > > > > > > It's not about rewriting, it's about fixing the problem in the right > > > way and not just hacking around it. > > > > > > If we see a shortcoming like this, we fix it and do not magically work > > > around it. > > > > +1 > > > > Thomas is right. kobject reference counting is the correct solution. > > Nack on this approach. > > Only use a kobject if you want to be in the sysfs hierarchy (which I > don't think you want to do here.) If you want proper reference > counting, use a 'struct kref' instead. > This is actually an interesting problem. The gpiolib code presently has its own hand-rolled sysfs support, which is entirely optional. If someone is going to go through and do some refactoring anyways it would be worthwile to see how much tidying up using a kobject would permit. kobject-based refcounting could in effect be used like kref-refcounting with the sysfs interface disabled, too. -- 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