On Tue, May 16, 2006, Andrew de Quincey wrote: > On Tuesday 16 May 2006 12:25, Johannes Stezenbach wrote: > > IOW, chaining ->release() is not the problem, but having > > ->release() decrement the refcount of some other module is. > > Hmm, sorry, not sure what you mean here - where is one module decrementing the > refcount of another module? Ah, do you mean the symbol_put in the current > dvb_attach() ? Sorry, you published your current idea as a patch against an ill-conceived, discarded idea. This makes it very hard to read. http://linuxtv.org/hg/~quincy/v4l-dvb-attach For discussion it would be *much* better to have a small patch against current mainline which just does the core changes plus one or two example demod driver changes. Anyway: dvb_unregister_frontend(): ... + while(fe->ops->release) { + struct module *m = fe->ops->release(fe); + if (m) + module_put(m); + } + - this way of chaining release() looks just sick (is it even legal C code? can the optimizer not optimize away the fe->ops->release register reload and turn this into an endless loop?) - the module_put() in there is just as wrong as doing the module_put() inside release() Really, the more I think about it, this whole chaining idea is garbage. Better change lnbp21. Johannes _______________________________________________ linux-dvb@xxxxxxxxxxx http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linux-dvb
