On Wed, 2009-09-23 at 16:11 +0800, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > >> Are there any plausible race conditions associated with doing the allocation this way? > > > > well, theoretically, yes. > > simultaneous add calls may happen in hotplug case, but I don't think an > > ACPI ALS device supports hotplug. > That would make that point irrelevant! > > Thinking further on this. What happens on a box that for some reason repeatedly inserts and > removes this module? > I don't see a problem in this case. > This is the sort of problem idr's are meant to overcome. They will cost you a bit > in terms of complexity though. > If we use generic names, say als0, als1, ..., it's worth using idr in the ALS class driver. But here, als_id is just used to fix the duplicate device name problem, in a native ALS driver. IMO, it's overkill to implement the idr stuff. thanks, rui -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
