On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 10:26 PM Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 10:00:05PM +0530, Devesh Sharma wrote:
>
> > > > > -static void bnxt_re_dev_unprobe(struct net_device *netdev,
> > > > > - struct bnxt_en_dev *en_dev)
> > > > > -{
> > > > > - dev_put(netdev);
> > > > > - module_put(en_dev->pdev->driver->driver.owner);
> > > > > -}
> > > >
> > > > And you are right to be wondering WTF is this
> >
> > Still trying to understand but what's the big idea here may be I can help.
>
> A driver should not have module put things like the above
>
> It should not be accessing ->driver without holding the device_lock()
>
> Basically it is all nonsense coding, Leon suggests to delete it and he
> is probably right.
>
> Can you explain what it thinks it is doing?
That F'ed up code is trying to prevent a situation where someone
tries to remove the bnxt_en driver while bnxt_re driver is using it.
All because bnxt_re driver is at the mercy of bnxt_en drive and there
is not symbole dependence, Do you suggest anything to prevent that
unload of bnxt_en other than doing this jargon. I did not follow how
DEPENDS_ON would prevent things.
>
> Jason
--
-Regards
Devesh
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
