Hi Hans, On Monday 09 September 2013 11:07:43 Hans Verkuil wrote: > On 09/06/2013 12:33 AM, Sylwester Nawrocki wrote: > > On 08/07/2013 07:49 PM, Hans Verkuil wrote: > >> On 08/07/2013 06:49 PM, Sylwester Nawrocki wrote: > >>> On 08/02/2013 03:00 PM, Hans Verkuil wrote: > >>>> On 08/02/2013 02:27 PM, Sylwester Nawrocki wrote: [snip] > > The main issue as I see it is that we need to track both driver remove() > > and struct device .release() calls and free resources only when last of > > them executes. Data structures which are referenced in fops must not be > > freed in remove() and we cannot use dev_get_drvdata() in fops, e.g. not > > protected with device_lock(). > > You can do all that by returning 0 if probe() was partially successful (i.e. > one or more, but not all, nodes were created successfully) by doing what I > described above. I don't see another way that doesn't introduce a race > condition. But isn't this just plain wrong ? If probing fails, I don't see how returning success could be a good idea. > That doesn't mean that there isn't one, it's just that I don't know of a > better way of doing this. We might need support from the device core. -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
