On 20.01.20 10:14, David Hildenbrand wrote: > On 20.01.20 08:48, Michal Hocko wrote: >> On Fri 17-01-20 08:57:51, Dan Williams wrote: >> [...] >>> Unless the user is willing to hold the device_hotplug_lock over the >>> evaluation then the result is unreliable. >> >> Do we want to hold the device_hotplug_lock from this user readable file >> in the first place? My book says that this just waits to become a >> problem. > > It was the "big hammer" solution for this RFC. > > I think we could do with a try_lock() on the device_lock() paired with a > device->removed flag. The latter is helpful for properly catching zombie > devices on the onlining/offlining path either way (and on my todo list). We do have dev->p->dead which could come in handy. -- Thanks, David / dhildenb
