I'm a little confused by the thread, so excuse me if I'm commenting on a dead issue: I think the issue with i2c-proc incrementing it's counter was that it was possible to cause an 'oops' when modules were inserted and removed in particular ways. I.e., something like this caused an oops: insmod i2c-proc insmod eeprom cd /proc/sys/dev/sensors/eeprom-0-50 cat * rmmod i2c-proc cat * oops! Does this help? Phil On Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 01:11:44PM -0400, Mark Studebaker wrote: > Don't know - anybody? > > Alexander Viro wrote: > > > > On Thu, 5 Sep 2002, Mark D. Studebaker wrote: > > > > > removed from i2c-proc.c. As the comments say, the code prevents module > > > unloading > > > if the /proc files are in use. > > > > So does setting ->owner on them. > > > > > Why is this a bad thing? > > > > Because module has no business messing with its own reference count. > > > > > Is there a better way to do it? > > > > See above. > > Does Al mean we already do the right thing in i2c-dev.c:89 > static struct file_operations i2cdev_fops { > owner: THIS_MODULE, > > and i2c-dev.c:495 int __init i2c_dev_init > ... > if (register_chrdev(I2C_MAJOR, "i2c", &i2cdev_fops)) > > If so, we need to find a method to verify his statement. > Oh, Linus applied the reverse patch for this to 2.5.34. > Albert > -- > Albert Cranford Deerfield Beach FL USA > ac9410 at bellsouth.net > > =============================================================================================================== > Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2002 22:51:55 -0400 > From: "Mark D. Studebaker" <mds at paradyne.com> > Organization: Paradyne Networks, Largo FL > X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.18 i586) > X-Accept-Language: en > To: viro at math.psu.edu > CC: Albert Cranford <ac9410 at attbi.com> > Subject: Re: i2c-proc correction > > Al, > > Albert Cranford and I work on the lm_sensors project. > > in May 2002 you removed what was called > "s390 procfs abuse" lines with i2c_fill_inode procedure in > drivers/i2c/i2c-proc.c - > kernel 2.5.18 - > > URL > > http://linux.bkbits.net:8080/linux-2.5/diffs/drivers/i2c/i2c-proc.c at 1.3?nav=index.html|src/.|src/drivers|src/drivers/i2c|hist/drivers/i2c/i2c-proc.c > > We inadvertently put the lines back into kernel 2.5.32 with our recent > patch. Sorry. > We are submitting a patch to Linus (below) to take them back out in > kernel 2.5.34. > > However, I don't understand what 's390 procfs abuse' is or why these > lines were > removed from i2c-proc.c. As the comments say, the code prevents module > unloading > if the /proc files are in use. Why is this a bad thing? Is there a > better way to do it? > > Thank you very much for your help. > > mds > > > > > --- linux-2.5.33/drivers/i2c/i2c-proc.c.orig 2002-09-04 09:04:30.000000000 -0400 > > +++ linux/drivers/i2c/i2c-proc.c 2002-09-04 09:08:59.000000000 -0400 > > @@ -60,7 +60,6 @@ > > static struct ctl_table_header *i2c_entries[SENSORS_ENTRY_MAX]; > > > > static struct i2c_client *i2c_clients[SENSORS_ENTRY_MAX]; > > -static unsigned short i2c_inodes[SENSORS_ENTRY_MAX]; > > > > static ctl_table sysctl_table[] = { > > {CTL_DEV, "dev", NULL, 0, 0555}, > > @@ -189,8 +188,6 @@ > > return id; > > } > > #endif /* DEBUG */ > > - i2c_inodes[id - 256] = > > - new_header->ctl_table->child->child->de->low_ino; > > new_header->ctl_table->child->child->de->owner = controlling_mod; > > > > return id; > > @@ -213,49 +210,6 @@ > > } > > } > > > > -/* Monitor access for /proc/sys/dev/sensors; make unloading i2c-proc.o > > - impossible if some process still uses it or some file in it */ > > -void i2c_fill_inode(struct inode *inode, int fill) > > -{ > > - if (fill) > > - MOD_INC_USE_COUNT; > > - else > > - MOD_DEC_USE_COUNT; > > -} > > - > > -/* Monitor access for /proc/sys/dev/sensors/ directories; make unloading > > - the corresponding module impossible if some process still uses it or > > - some file in it */ > > -void i2c_dir_fill_inode(struct inode *inode, int fill) > > -{ > > - int i; > > - struct i2c_client *client; > > - > > -#ifdef DEBUG > > - if (!inode) { > > - printk(KERN_ERR "i2c-proc.o: Warning: inode NULL in fill_inode()\n"); > > - return; > > - } > > -#endif /* def DEBUG */ > > - > > - for (i = 0; i < SENSORS_ENTRY_MAX; i++) > > - if (i2c_clients[i] > > - && (i2c_inodes[i] == inode->i_ino)) break; > > -#ifdef DEBUG > > - if (i == SENSORS_ENTRY_MAX) { > > - printk > > - (KERN_ERR "i2c-proc.o: Warning: inode (%ld) not found in fill_inode()\n", > > - inode->i_ino); > > - return; > > - } > > -#endif /* def DEBUG */ > > - client = i2c_clients[i]; > > - if (fill) > > - client->driver->inc_use(client); > > - else > > - client->driver->dec_use(client); > > -} > > - > > int i2c_proc_chips(ctl_table * ctl, int write, struct file *filp, > > void *buffer, size_t * lenp) > > { > > -- Philip Edelbrock -- IS Manager -- Edge Design, Corvallis, OR phil at netroedge.com -- http://www.netroedge.com/~phil PGP F16: 01 D2 FD 01 B5 46 F4 F0 3A 8B 9D 7E 14 7F FB 7A