On Thu, 28 May 2009, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > Alan Stern <stern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > There's another point to consider. If you do accept my argument that > > empty targets can be removed from visibility regardless of the host's > > state, then this removal races with addition of a new child. Since > > removal involves calling device_del(), it can't be protected by the > > host lock. Instead we'd have to use a mutex to protect both target > > addition and target removal. > > Careful. Holding a lock over device_del is an easy and hidden way > to trigger a rare deadlocks. Your point is well taken. In addition, I don't really like the idea of forcing device removal to wait for some other device to be added. I'll work around the problem somehow... A short polling loop shoud do the job. Alan Stern -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
