On Fri, Aug 05, 2011 at 10:24:55 +0100, Martyn Welch wrote: > I think that by refcounting the resources being used we > will know whether a bridge module is being used or not, > thus whether it can be unloaded or not. But the granularity is wrong; if you want to know whether the bridge is being used, just keep track of the devices *which want to make known* that they're under the bridge. > By reference counting the use of resources we minimise the > chance of poorly written drivers using resources, but not > registering the fact that they are in fact using a VME bridge. A driver leaking a resource will then leave a bogus refcount on the bus driver--a clear case of self-inflicted pain. The argument of "poorly written drivers" does not apply; I would expect all the merged drivers to be "good quality" only, that's why we want to be upstream and why we put effort in reviewing. Your point is well-intentioned, but in practice we'd be shooting ourselves in the foot, potentially ending up with an unremovable vme bridge module--which is worse than a driver leaking a resource. Refcounting must be kept simple & stupid; doing it behind the backs of the drivers we're trying to protect is a mistake. Emilio _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
