On Fri, 19 Jul 2013, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 2:07 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez > <mcgrof@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> This is not a very good idea. Although setting drvdata to NULL allowed > >> a lot of code to be removed, it also exposed a bunch of hidden bugs -- > >> drivers were using the drvdata value even after their remove function > >> returned. > > > > Eek, have we not SmPL'ify'd a proof yet to ensure code like this no > > longer exists? Julia? :) > > Come to think of it, perhaps we should require *proof* with SmPL like > this in future to avoid regressions ? Is it a concurrency problem? SmPL is not so good at that in the general case. One would have to know a specific case where other functions of the driver can be invoked after remove. julia -- 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
