[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <873507cziz.ffs@tglx>
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2023 10:11:16 +0200
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: brgl@...ev.pl
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@...aro.org>,
Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>,
Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] genirq: proc: fix a procfs entry leak
On Fri, Aug 25 2023 at 00:36, brgl@...ev.pl wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Aug 2023 22:12:41 +0200, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> said:
> Here a GPIO device - that is also an irq chip - is unbound (this is a testing
> module unbound during a test-case but it can be anything else, like an I2C
> expander for which the driver is unloaded) while some users called
> request_irq() on its interrupts (this is orthogonal to gpiod_get() and doesn't
> take a reference to the module, so nothing is stopping us from
> unloading it)
You just described the real problem in this sentence. So why are you
trying to cure a symptom?
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists