Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 6 Oct 2016 10:22:45 -0600 | From | Jason Gunthorpe <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] tpm: don't destroy chip device prematurely |
| |
On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 02:23:57PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> 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.
Certainly the locking could be changed, but it would be nice to have a reason other than aesthetics.
sysfs is not unique, we also do not grab the rwlock lock during any commands executed as part of probe. There are basically two locking regimes - stuff that is proven to by synchronous with probe/remove (sysfs, probe cmds) and everything else (kapi, cdev)
Further, the current sysfs implementation is nice and sane: the file accesses cannot fail with ENODEV. That is a useful concrete property and I don't think we should change it without a good reason.
Jason
| |