On Tue, Nov 01, 2011 at 07:09:27PM +0100, David Herrmann wrote: > 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. I think adding owner to device_type might not be a bad idea at all... Thanks. -- Dmitry -- 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
