On Tue, 3 May 2016, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > > 1. Do we really need a completion? If I am not missing something > > kobject_del() always waits for sysfs callers to leave thanks to kernfs > > active protection. > > What do you mean by "kernfs active protection"? I see that > kernfs_remove() gets the kernfs_mutex lock, but I can't find anywhere > that a write to a sysfs file uses that lock. > > I'm probably missing something... I don't want to speak on Miroslav's behalf, but I'm pretty sure that what he has on mind is per-kernfs_node active refcounting kernfs does (see kernfs_node->active, and especially it's usage in __kernfs_remove()). More specifically, execution of store() and show() sysfs callbacks is guaranteed (by kernfs) to happen with that particular attribute's active reference held for reading (and that makes it impossible for that attribute to vanish prematurely). -- Jiri Kosina SUSE Labs -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe live-patching" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
