Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 9 Aug 2011 15:19:15 -0400 | From | "Emilio G. Cota" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 5/8] staging: vme: add functions for bridge module refcounting |
| |
On Tue, Aug 09, 2011 at 10:00:09 +0100, Martyn Welch wrote: > So, out of the 3 bus types you have used to demonstrate that refcounts should > always be handled explicitly, 2 of the 3 (at least to me) appear to implicitly > handling refcounting. (snip) > It appears to me that both PCI and RapidIO (both buses that you have tried to > use to defend your position) don't seem to me to by-and-large expect drivers > to explicitly manage refcounting.
Well if that's the impression you get, perhaps you need to actually read the code:
In drivers/rapidio/rio-driver.c:
/** * rio_dev_get - Increments the reference count of the RIO device structure * * @rdev: RIO device being referenced * * Each live reference to a device should be refcounted. * * Drivers for RIO devices should normally record such references in * their probe() methods, when they bind to a device, and release * them by calling rio_dev_put(), in their disconnect() methods. */ struct rio_dev *rio_dev_get(struct rio_dev *rdev) { if (rdev) get_device(&rdev->dev);
return rdev; }
You can find a similar function (with almost the very same description) for usb and pci.
> That leaves USB, which I'd argue is a very different bus to VME.
From the device model's viewpoint, VME is not special in any way, something you don't seem to understand.
> > I'm tired of your non-arguments. I'm just trying to persuade you > > to do what everyone else is doing, with technical reasons. To me > > (and to everybody else in this list, I'd imagine) refcounting > > should be explicit. You're going against what I perceive are > > well-established pratices in the kernel. I can't understand it. > > Which I have yet to see you convincingly backup. I see a > large amount of bluff about oppses and how buses apparently > deal with refcounting. I also know I have had a number of > commits to the VME code by a number of others (which is a > matter of public record, you can look at the commits in git) > that haven't complained about how the bus code is structured.
You're in denial. Manohar's patch fixes a very obvious bug, which is fixed in the same way other buses deal with this.
> I also know I have had a number of commits to the VME code > by a number of others (which is a matter of public record, > you can look at the commits in git) that haven't complained > about how the bus code is structured.
The fact that other people didn't notice this bug is irrelevant.
> You have proposed a completely different structure. Manohar has proposed some > changes and I am trying to work with him to find a solution that satisfies > both of us.
??? I just want you to ack Manohar's patch.
Emilio
| |