On Wed, May 04, 2016 at 12:31:12AM +0200, Jiri Kosina wrote: > 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). Thanks, that makes sense. So what exactly is the problem the completion is trying to solve? Is it to ensure that the kobject has been cleaned up before it returns to the caller, in case the user wants to call klp_register() again after unregistering? If so, that's quite an unusual use case which I think we should just consider unsupported. In fact, if you try to do it, kobject_init() complains loudly because kobj->state_initialized is still 1 because kobjects aren't meant to be reused like that. -- Josh -- 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
