[lkml]   [2010]   [Nov]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH/RFC] core: add a function to safely try to get device driver owner
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 09:54:10PM +0100, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
> Hi Jon
> On Mon, 29 Nov 2010, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> > On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 20:43:28 +0100 (CET)
> > Guennadi Liakhovetski <> wrote:
> >
> > > When two drivers interoperate without an explicit dependency, it is often
> > > required to prevent one of them from being unloaded safely by dereferencing
> > > dev->driver->owner. This patch provides a generic function to do this in a
> > > race-free way.
> >
> > I must ask: why not, instead, make the dependency explicit? In
> > particular, this looks like an application for the proposed media
> > controller code, which is meant to model the connections between otherwise
> > independent devices. The fact that your example comes from V4L2 (which is
> > the current domain of the media controller) also argues that way.
> Sorry, don't see a good way to do this. This function is for a general
> dependency, where you don't have that driver, we are checking for register
> with us, so, the only way to get to it is via dev->driver->owner.

Wait, what? The device is already bound to a driver, right, so why
would you care about "locking" the module into memory? What could this
possibly be used for?

> And I also don't want to move registering the device into the
> dependant driver and then wait (with a timeout) for a driver to probe
> with it... I just want to verify, whether a driver has attached to
> that device and whether I can lock it down.

Who cares if a driver is attached to any device? And again, why would
you want to "lock it down"?


greg k-h

 \ /
  Last update: 2010-11-29 22:45    [W:0.049 / U:2.560 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site