On Fri, 2006-09-01 at 11:02 +0200, Stefan Richter wrote: > Somehow the (void)try_module_get(...) looks dangerous to me. Is it > really safe to always ignore failures to get the module? Why would we > want to ignore failures? Couldn't there be border cases where a > module_getter/_putter in a concurrent code path disturbs > scsi_device_get/_put's underlying assumptions? As long as we don't do spurious module_puts, yes. However, there looks to be another nasty module race that's orthogonal to this, in that the final scsi_host_put() of a module doesn't necessarily wait for the host actually to be released, so it's possible to free the host template when the module exit finishes and still have a partially functioning host. James - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
