lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Nov]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 1/3] firmware loader: Introduce new API - request_firmware_abort()
On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 06:31:38AM +0000, Kweh, Hock Leong wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Matt Fleming [mailto:matt@console-pimps.org]
> > Sent: Monday, November 17, 2014 11:12 PM
> > >
> > > - Only doing module unload is required to be aware of this synchronization
> > > -> Ensuring the call back does not fall into unloaded code which may
> > cause
> > > undefined behavior.
> > > -> Ensuring the put_device() & module_put() code have finished in
> > firmware_class.c
> > > function request_firmware_work_func() before the device is
> > unregistered
> > > and module unloaded happen.
> >
> > Shouldn't the existing module_{put,get}() and {put,get}_device() calls
> > provide all the necessary synchronisation?
> >
> > Module unload should not be possible while other code is using the
> > module (and the module refcnt has been incremented accordindly).
> >
> > Right?
> >
> > --
> > Matt Fleming, Intel Open Source Technology Center
>
> Hi Matt,
>
> Yes, you are right. If the module refcount is not zero, you will get error
> message and returned while you do "rmmod". But I strongly believe if we
> have the capability in our code to take care of it by doing synchronization,
> we should take care of it in case people are doing "rmmod -f". Don't
> you think so?

If you do 'rmmod -f' you get to keep all of the broken pieces of your
kernel, no need to try to help out with crazy things like that.

greg k-h


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-11-19 03:41    [W:0.074 / U:0.380 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site