On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 04:29:15PM +0800, Li Zhong wrote: > On Wed, 2014-04-23 at 10:19 -0400, Tejun Heo wrote: > > cc'ing Li Zhong who's working on a simliar issue in the following > > thread and quoting whole body. > > > > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1680706 > > > > Li, this is another variation of the same problem. Maybe this can be > > covered by your work too? > > It seems to me that it is about write something to driver attribute, and > driver unloading. If so, maybe it's not easy to reuse the help functions > created for device attribute, and device removing. > > But I guess the idea to break the active protection could still be > applied here: > > Maybe we could try_module_get() here (like the other option suggested by > Johan?), and break active protection if we could get the module, > something like below? I don't get why try_module_get() matters here. We can't call into ->store if the object at hand is already destroyed and the underlying module can't go away if the target device is still alive. try_module_get() doesn't actually protect the object. Why does that matter? This is self removal, right? Can you please take a look at kernfs_remove_self()? Thanks. -- tejun -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
