On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 2:27 PM, Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@xxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. Thanks Julia. In that case I'm going to just leave this in place given that if there's a bug upstream we'll get it fixed as soon as a respective patch gets upstream as well. That is, we are not using old drivers, we use the same upstream drivers so if a regression was found in backports the fix must go upstream s well. This is one of the benefits of backporting -- the range of users and testers increases and we still benefit from the upstream bandwagon. Luis -- 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
