[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120110000519.3d17e64e@milhouse>
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 00:05:19 +0100
From: Michael Büsch <m@...s.ch>
To: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Cc: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
Joerg Roedel <joerg.roedel@....com>,
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
Kernel development list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Incorrect uses of get_driver()/put_driver()
On Mon, 9 Jan 2012 17:44:24 -0500 (EST)
Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu> wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Jan 2012, Michael Büsch wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 9 Jan 2012 14:48:15 -0500 (EST)
> > Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu> wrote:
> >
> > > Maybe you want to call device_lock(&sdev->dev) here? It will prevent
> > > the driver from being unbound (and therefore from being unloaded), and
> > > it's likely that sdrv's remove and probe routines expect to be called
> > > with this lock held, because that's what the device core does. The
> > > drawback is that holding the lock prevents other things from happening
> > > as well, like unregistering sdev.
> > >
> > > Alternatively, we can simply remove ssb_driver_get/put.
> >
> > I think in practice it doesn't matter. This function is only
> > used in the rare case where the EEPROM on the board is written.
>
> Okay, then we can just remove those calls and not worry about it for
> now, right?
This would be acceptable.
--
Greetings, Michael.
--
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