[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140411102649.GB26252@mtj.dyndns.org>
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2014 06:26:49 -0400
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Li Zhong <zhong@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com, toshi.kani@...com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2] Use kernfs_break_active_protection() for device
online store callbacks
Hello,
On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 12:10:45PM +0800, Li Zhong wrote:
> @@ -439,6 +439,7 @@ static ssize_t online_store(struct device *dev, struct device_attribute *attr,
> {
> bool val;
> int ret;
> + struct kernfs_node *kn;
>
> ret = strtobool(buf, &val);
> if (ret < 0)
> @@ -448,7 +449,15 @@ static ssize_t online_store(struct device *dev, struct device_attribute *attr,
> if (ret)
> return ret;
>
> + kn = kernfs_find_and_get(dev->kobj.sd, attr->attr.name);
Wouldn't find_and_get need to be paired with put?
> + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!kn))
> + goto out;
> +
> + kernfs_break_active_protection(kn);
> +
> ret = val ? device_online(dev) : device_offline(dev);
With active protection protection @dev may go away at any time. There
should be some protection / synchronization to prevent that, no?
> + kernfs_unbreak_active_protection(kn);
> +out:
> unlock_device_hotplug();
> return ret < 0 ? ret : count;
> }
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
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