Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.32 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.32;
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To:     Biju Das <biju.das.jz@bp.renesas.com>,
        Alessandro Zummo <a.zummo@towertech.it>,
        Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com>
Cc:     John Stultz <jstultz@google.com>, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>,
        Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be>,
        Biju Das <biju.das.au@gmail.com>,
        "linux-rtc@vger.kernel.org" <linux-rtc@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org" 
        <linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v2] alarmtimer: Fix rebind failure
In-Reply-To: <TYCPR01MB11269FF2DBFDC96B9C12D2E5E86CDA@TYCPR01MB11269.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
References: <20230922081208.26334-1-biju.das.jz@bp.renesas.com>
 <87il7fq1al.ffs@tglx>
 <TYCPR01MB112697A5D4B57101CDE27C88D86CEA@TYCPR01MB11269.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
 <87fs2jpznr.ffs@tglx>
 <TYCPR01MB11269C6BF3934F9AAC44F855186CEA@TYCPR01MB11269.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
 <87bkd7pic3.ffs@tglx>
 <TYCPR01MB11269FF2DBFDC96B9C12D2E5E86CDA@TYCPR01MB11269.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
Date:   Tue, 10 Oct 2023 17:16:26 +0200
Message-ID: <87o7h6o6d1.ffs@tglx>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Precedence: bulk

Biju!

On Tue, Oct 10 2023 at 06:18, Biju Das wrote:
> RTC driver is defined as a module, so I was testing
> remove/unbind followed by install/bind on RTC driver to check
> any resource leakage and found that device is not working properly.
>
> As you mentioned above, we should not remove RTC driver. So I would
> like to drop this patch.
>
> Is there any place we can document this to avoid another person doing
> same mistake?

The point is that the removal should not happen in the first place.

Though it seems that even a held refcount on the module is not
preventing that, which is bad to begin with.

That aside I'm not saying that supporting removal is completely
impossible. The charger driver can probably be fixed, but as this is a
user space visible change this needs a lot of thoughts and proper
analysis why such a change would be correct under all circumstances.

Thanks,

        tglx