On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 07:54:37PM -0800, Pete Zaitcev wrote: > > > However, what about the port->open_count? > > > It is manipulated without any locking, it seems. > > > > Actually it can be gotten rid of entirely I think. The reference count > > of the object is now handled properly, so open_count is pretty much > > pointless. Now we are still relying on the fact that open() can't race > > with disconnect() from the USB bus, which in real-life is probably ok, > > You cannot just get rid of it if you still want to call component > driver's ->open only once. Something has to count, and reference > counts do not match open counts, so you have to keep a counter for it. > An alternative would be to pass all upper level opens through to > component drivers, which would just push open counts down a level. > IIRC, we did it before, but migrated to the current scheme. > So, the open count stays. Since it stays, it has to be protected. Ah, good point, you are correct. > > How about a patch against a clean 2.4 tree? This is against the latest > > fedora 2.4 kernel, right? > > I was going to send it out after 2.4.26, but I can send it now if you > want. After 2.4.26 is fine, I'm in no hurry. thanks, greg k-h
