On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 7:00 PM, Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 01, 2011 at 06:52:11PM +0100, David Herrmann wrote: >> My solution: Some parent subsystem of us must take and release this >> module-refcnt instead of us, so this bug doesn't occur. > > Yes, that is the ultimate solution for something like this. > > But, in reality, we don't care about module unloading races as there are > plenty of other issues involved there where things can go bad, so we > just try the best we can :) Ah, I am kind of relieved that I got this right. I almost started thinking I am insane.. ;) So your answer is that this is so unlikely that it won't be fixed? I am fine with that, even though I wonder why stuff like "struct file_operations" include "owner" fields to protect callbacks but "struct device_type" does *not* include any protection of it's "release" callback. This is why I thought calling module_get/put() inside the driver-core would be just consistent with other subsystems. But if this race is fine, I will simply copy it. > thanks, > > greg k-h Sorry for the confusion and thanks for your answers. Regards David -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-input" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
