On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 08:50:57AM +0000, archive@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > >And how are you guaranteing that anyone walking the list is doing so in > >a "safe" manner? What's to keep an entry from being removed while some > >random kernel code is walking it? > > > >Hint, don't allow direct access to this list, if you do so, you are in > >for a world of hurt... > The entire purpose of this list is to allow a small built in chunk of > code to fill it up (typically from board files) whilst the rest of IIO can > still be built as a module. Why are you trying to do that? > All but one function that touches this are in > the IIO core modules. I can wrap this up but only at considerable cost > (the wrappers will basically be the various list functions with a lock taken > - I'll add one of those). I can write extreme warnings around it saying > that it strictly for use by the IIO core. Would that be acceptable? I still don't understand the point of the list. Why is this somehow different from any other bus in the kernel in that the only way to "register" a device is to actually register the device. > Clearly this element should stay in the IIO directory once the rest of > the header has gone into include/linux/iio/. I can do that division now > so the separation is more apparent. > > So in summary two options exist. > > 1) Leave as is with a suitable warning and maybe rename to make it appear > less friendly. > 2) Wrap it so we end up with accessors that are pretty much the standard > list accessors just with one parameter fixed and trivial locking. This isn't > too painful but seems conceptually wrong to me. > 3) Move everything that uses it into the bit that gets built in even > if IIO is a module. There should never be a "bit that is always built in if IIO is a module", sorry. > This last one will lead to an explosion in what is exported from IIO as we > will still need to have the divide between the bit that can be modular and > that which cannot somewhere! (which is why I didn't suggest it > before). Why are you trying to make such a strange distinction here? If a device uses IIO, then you need to have the IIO core. It can be built as a module or not, again, just like any other bus in the kernel. greg k-h -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-iio" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
