[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <512955F7.1020309@wwwdotorg.org>
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2013 16:51:19 -0700
From: Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>
To: Alexander Shiyan <shc_work@...l.ru>
CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Dong Aisheng <dong.aisheng@...aro.org>,
Samuel Ortiz <sameo@...ux.intel.com>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>,
Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...onic-design.de>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/3] mfd: syscon: Removed support for unloading
On 02/22/2013 10:28 PM, Alexander Shiyan wrote:
>> On 02/22/2013 10:15 PM, Alexander Shiyan wrote:
>>> The driver can be used in various subsystems and therefore should not
>>> be unloaded when it is defined in the kernel configuration, so remove
>>> support for unloading it.
>>
>> Why not fix the clients to module_get() at the appropriate times; then
>> you could still allow unloading, couldn't you?
>
> I has explain this before.
If multiple people have asked this, perhaps it'd be a good idea to
include the answer in the commit description.
> Driver defined as "bool" and loaded via postcore_initcall.
Being defined as a "bool" sounds like a reasonable reason that no
remove() is required.
Being loaded via postcore_initcall() (a) should have absolutely no
influence over whether a remove() is required (an actual module could
just as well include a postcore_initcall function, which would get
executed at module load time), and (b) is wrong; initcall ordering
shouldn't be used to influence driver probe ordering.
--
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