Hi Nathan, > > > > - /* > > > > - * The release function could be called after the > > > > - * module has been unloaded. It's _only_ task is to > > > > - * free the struct. Therefore, we specify kfree() > > > > - * directly here. (Probably a little bit obfuscating > > > > - * but legitime ...). > > > > - */ > > > > > > Why is the comment not relevant after this change? Or better: why is it not > > > valid before this change, which is why the code was introduced a very long > > > time ago? Any reference? > > > > > > I've seen the warning since quite some time, but didn't change the code > > > before sure that this doesn't introduce the bug described in the comment. > > > > From only 20 years ago: > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20040316170812.GA14971@xxxxxxxxx/ > > > > The particular code (zfcp) was changed, so it doesn't have this code > > (or never did?) anymore, but for the rest this may or may not still > > be valid. > > I guess relevant may not have been the correct word. Maybe obvious? I > can keep the comment but I do not really see what it adds, although > reading the above thread, I suppose it was added as justification for > calling kfree() as ->release() for a 'struct device'? Kind of seems like > that ship has sailed since I see this all over the place as a > ->release() function. I do not see how this patch could have a function > change beyond that but I may be misreading or misinterpreting your full > comment. That doesn't answer my question what prevents the release function from being called after the module has been unloaded. At least back then when the code was added it was a real bug.
