On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 11:49:11AM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
Hi Greg,
On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 11:40 AM Greg Kroah-Hartman
<gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 08:32:42PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 08:22:36PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
After this, you want me to get rid of kobj_map, right? Or you don't
care as block doesn't use it anymore? :)
I have a patch to kill it, but it causes odd regressions with the
tpm driver according to the kernel test. As I have grand plans that
build on the block ѕide of this series for 5.11, I plan to defer the
chardev side and address it for 5.12.
Ok, sounds good.
Wow, I just looked at the tpm code, and it is, um, "interesting" in how
it thinks device lifespans work. Nothing like having 4 different
structures with different lifespans embedded within a single structure.
Good thing that no one can dynamically remove a TPM device during
"normal" operation.
/sys/.../unbind?
I said "normal" operations :)
Anyone who uses unbind and is suprised when things go "boom" is naive.
thanks,
greg k-h
