Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261371AbVDZHDI (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Apr 2005 03:03:08 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261381AbVDZHBm (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Apr 2005 03:01:42 -0400 Received: from lyle.provo.novell.com ([137.65.81.174]:23350 "EHLO lyle.provo.novell.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261371AbVDZHAd (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Apr 2005 03:00:33 -0400 Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 00:00:03 -0700 From: Greg KH To: Evgeniy Polyakov Cc: dtor_core@ameritech.net, sensors@stimpy.netroedge.com, LKML Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH 0/22] W1: sysfs, lifetime and other fixes Message-ID: <20050426070003.GE5889@suse.de> References: <200504210207.02421.dtor_core@ameritech.net> <1114089504.29655.93.camel@uganda> <1114420131.8527.52.camel@uganda> <20050426001500.6a199399@zanzibar.2ka.mipt.ru> <1114497816.8527.66.camel@uganda> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1114497816.8527.66.camel@uganda> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1677 Lines: 37 On Tue, Apr 26, 2005 at 10:43:36AM +0400, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote: > On Mon, 2005-04-25 at 15:22 -0500, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > On 4/25/05, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote: > > > While thinking about locking schema > > > with respect to sysfs files I recalled, > > > why I implemented such a logic - > > > now one can _always_ remove _any_ module > > > [corresponding object is removed from accessible > > > pathes and waits untill all exsting users are gone], > > > which is very good - I really like it in networking model, > > > while with whole device driver model > > > if we will read device's file very quickly > > > in several threads we may end up not unloading it at all. > > > > I am sorrry, that is complete bull*. sysfs also allows removing > > modules at an arbitrary time (and usually without annoying "waiting > > for refcount" at that)... You just seem to not understand how driver > > code works, thus the need of inventing your own schema. > > Ok, let's try again - now with explanation, > since it looks like you did not even try to understand what I said. > If you will remove objects from ->remove() callback > you may end up with rmmod being stuck. Yes, and that is acceptable. networking implemented their own locking method to allow unloading of their drivers in such a manner. No other subsystem is going to do that kind of implementation, so Dmitry is correct here. thanks, greg k-h - 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/