Hello, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > I guess we are going to have to disagree on this one. Yeap, seems like it. > My take is simply that a correct user has to wait until no one else > can find the kobject before calling kobject_del. At which point > races are impossible, and it doesn't matter if sysfs_mutex is held > across the entire operation. This one also is a matter of degree. Way back when users could crash sysfs reliably from userland, the sysfs code had a lot of assumptions about object lifetime and synchronizaion which even the sysfs code itself didn't really follow leading to fragility. My focus while restructuring the code was to make the code behave as expected by the usual conventions. It could be that I'm a bit paranoid about this, but in general I really don't like when low level code doesn't do its due diligence to save several hours of effort to implement clean semantics, but again there's nothing wrong with your due and my due being different. I guess I'll have to pass the buck to Greg again with my rather strong NACK. > For the long term I still intend to kill __sysfs_remove_dir. Just > not in this patch series. Yeah, sysfs code is in the middle of two sane ways. sysfs either has to deal with children creation/removal including atomicity of the operations or it should force its users to do so. I prefer the former but any would be better than the current situation. Thanks. -- tejun -- 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
