lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [May]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRE: various vmbus review comments
Date


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christoph Hellwig [mailto:hch@infradead.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2011 1:24 AM
> To: KY Srinivasan
> Cc: Christoph Hellwig; Greg KH; gregkh@suse.de; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org;
> devel@linuxdriverproject.org; virtualization@lists.osdl.org
> Subject: Re: various vmbus review comments
>
> On Mon, May 09, 2011 at 02:56:52PM +0000, KY Srinivasan wrote:
> > I will address this. Greg had a concern about module reference counting
> > and looking at the current code, it did not appear to be an issue. The
> > change you are suggesting will not affect the vmbus core which is what I want
> > to focus on. I will however, fix this issue in the current round of patches I will
> > send out this week.
>
> It very clearly affects the interface between the core and the
> functional drivers. Trying to submit the core without making sure the
> interface is exports works properly is not an overly good idea.

I must be missing something here. As I look at the block driver (and
this is indicative of other drivers as well); the exit routine -
blkvsc_drv_exit, first iterates through all the devices it manages
and invokes device_unregister() on each of the devices and then
invokes vmbus_child_driver_unregister() which is just a wrapper on
driver_unregister(). So, if I understand you correctly, you want the devices to
persist even if there is no driver bound to them. So, if I eliminated the code
that iterates over the devices and unregisters them, that should fix the problem
and I can do this without changing the vmbus core interfaces.

Regards,

K. Y




\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-05-10 15:03    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans