Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262102AbVAYTkE (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Jan 2005 14:40:04 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262088AbVAYTju (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Jan 2005 14:39:50 -0500 Received: from 213-239-205-147.clients.your-server.de ([213.239.205.147]:27034 "EHLO debian.tglx.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262102AbVAYTi7 (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Jan 2005 14:38:59 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH] fix bad locking in drivers/base/driver.c From: Thomas Gleixner Reply-To: tglx@linutronix.de To: Greg KH Cc: Linus Torvalds , Mike Waychison , Bill Davidsen , Jirka Kosina , Patrick Mochel , LKML , Ingo Molnar In-Reply-To: <20050125191950.GA11445@kroah.com> References: <20050125055651.GA1987@kroah.com> <41F5F623.5090903@sun.com> <41F64E87.8040501@tmr.com> <41F66F86.4000609@sun.com> <20050125191950.GA11445@kroah.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 20:38:54 +0100 Message-Id: <1106681934.4538.6.camel@tglx.tec.linutronix.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.0.3 (2.0.3-2) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1636 Lines: 41 On Tue, 2005-01-25 at 11:19 -0800, Greg KH wrote: > On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 08:27:15AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > > > > Hmm.. I certainly like the "use completions" patch, since it makes it a > > lot more obvious what is going on (and it is what completions were > > designed for). > > > > However, since it does change semantics very subtly: if you call > > "driver_unregister()" twice (which is wrong, but looking at the code it > > looks like it would just silently have worked), the old code would just > > ignore it. The new code will block on the second one. > > > > Now, I don't mind the blocking (it's a bug to call it twice, and blocking > > should even give a nice callback when you do the "show tasks" sysrq, so > > it's a good way to _find_ the bug), but together with Mike's comment about > > "Compile-tested only", I'd really like somebody (Greg?) to say "trying to > > doubly remove the driver is so illegal that we don't care, and btw, I > > tested it and it's all ok". > > I will add it to my queue of patches for the driver core, and test it > out accordingly before trying it out in the -mm tree for a while. > Exactly the same patch is around since 2004-10-20. http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=109836020930855&w=2 It never showed any problems and I have it in my kernels since then. Also Ingo's RT patches have it since October. tglx - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/