On Mon, 2008-08-18 at 19:43 +1000, Rusty Russell wrote: > On Monday 18 August 2008 13:48:51 Greg KH wrote: > > On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 05:53:07AM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote: > > > Greg KH <greg@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > >> No! > > > > > > > > What you are doing here is wrong, trying to create two files with the > > > > same name. You just should not be doing that at all, it's that simple. > > > > Fix the broken code/link order, don't paper it over in the sysfs layer. > > > > > > Sorry, but relying on link order for anything is a mistake. It is subtle > > > and fragile and just means it'll eventually break again because it's > > > near impossible to properly maintain. > > > > We rely on link order for all sorts of things, this isn't new at all. > > Sure, but this code should be rewritten to check if the directory exists, > rather assuming it based on "previous prefix was the same". > > It's relying on a horribly undocumented assumption, and it broke. > > We need to change kernel_param_sysfs_setup() to do something > like "kobject_find(module_kset, name)" and only allocate a new mk if that > fails. kobj = kset_find_obj(module_kset, name) should return an existing object with that name (and take a reference on it, which needs to be dropped). Kay -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
