On Wed, Sep 28, 2022 at 11:17:02AM -0700, Bart Van Assche wrote: > On 9/27/22 17:02, Luis Chamberlain wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 20, 2022 at 10:13:40AM -0700, Bart Van Assche wrote: > > > On 9/14/22 15:56, Bart Van Assche wrote: > > > > Some kernel modules call device_del() from their module exit code and > > > > schedule asynchronous work from inside the .release callback without waiting > > > > until that callback has finished. As an example, many SCSI LLD drivers call > > > > scsi_remove_host() from their module exit code. scsi_remove_host() may > > > > invoke scsi_device_dev_release_usercontext() asynchronously. > > > > scsi_device_dev_release_usercontext() uses the host template pointer and > > > > that pointer usually exists in static storage in the SCSI LLD. Support > > > > using the module reference count to keep the module around until > > > > asynchronous module exiting has completed by waiting in the delete_module() > > > > system call until the module reference count drops to zero. > > > > > > Hi Luis, > > > > > > I'd like to know your opinion about this patch since you are the maintainer > > > of the kernel module system. > > > > See this patch which extends the documentation of try_module_get(): > > > > https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20211029184500.2821444-7-mcgrof@xxxxxxxxxx > > > > You can ignore discussion around the thread as sadly it is just > > irrelevant stuff not about that patch. But the logic it spells out > > is still true. > > > > So, in short, using try_module_get() on exit is actually the wrong > > thing to do and it is no surprise it would fail. I haven't gotten > > yet around to reviewing Mauro's driver API which let's you unbind > > drivers, but it sounds related so I CC'd you on that. > > > > So I'd like to ask instead if an alternative to using try_module_get() > > on exit would be better here and for the future. > > Hi Luis, > > The extended documentation of try_module_get() is very helpful. But please > note that this patch is not related to try_module_get() at all. See also > patch 7/7 in this series (https://lore.kernel.org/linux-scsi/20220914225621.415631-8-bvanassche@xxxxxxx/). I cannot see how this patch set is no way related to try_module_get() given the 7/7 patch you posted replaces try_module_get() with __module_get(). My point, and hint, is that the original construct that added try_module_get() on removal was flawed and I'm not sure trying to expand on that idea would or even *should* be fruitful given the issues / tribal knowledge I tried extending documentation for. It would beg the question if instead re-evaluating the goal could be done in such a way that the new documentation I suggested on try_module_get() would be seriously taken into account. Luis
