On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 7:18 PM, Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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... Exactly. But Greg does not seem to be very amused by that idea :-/ > Thanks. > > -- > Dmitry Cheers 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
