Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 6 Oct 2016 14:23:57 +0300 | From | Jarkko Sakkinen <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] tpm: don't destroy chip device prematurely |
| |
On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 10:27:41AM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 01:02:34PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > > I'll repeat my question: what worse can happen than returning -EPIPE? I > > though the whole rw lock scheme was introduced just for this purpose. > > I thought I explained this, if device_del is moved after ops = null > then if sysfs looses the race it will oops the kernel. device_del hard > fences sysfs.
Sorry, I missed that comment somehow. Looking at the code it is like that.
I think that they should be fenced then for the sake of consistency. I do not see why sysfs code is privileged not to do fencing while other peers have to do it.
/Jarkko
| |