Only if you plan to convert to THIS_MODULE and test it.
I'd rather not rip out the code without a replacement.
Albert Cranford wrote:
>
> Do you want me to remove this from i2c-proc in CVS ?
> Albert
> "Mark D. Studebaker" wrote:
> >
> > Documentation/DocBook/procfs* appears to confirm that THIS_MODULE is the
> > key.
> >
> > 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
> > >
> > > ===============================================================================================================
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Subject: Re: i2c-proc correction
> > > Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2002 22:51:55 -0400
> > > From: "Mark D. Studebaker" <mds at paradyne.com>
> > > Organization: Paradyne Networks, Largo FL
> > > To: viro at math.psu.edu
> > > CC: Albert Cranford <ac9410 at attbi.com>
> > > References: <3D760B07.D1EFD4C8 at attbi.com>
> > >
> > > 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)
> > > > {
> > > >
>
> --
> Albert Cranford Deerfield Beach FL USA
> ac9410 at bellsouth.net
