On Wed, Nov 02, 2011 at 02:45:58PM +0100, David Herrmann wrote: > 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 :-/ Actually that might work, but again, is it worth it? Patches, as always, are gladly accepted, if you think this would resolve the issue. thanks, greg k-h -- 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
