Re: [PATCH RFD] alternative kobject release wait mechanism

[Cornelia Huck]

On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 17:46:09 +0900,
Tejun Heo <htejun@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> It's debatable but I think things will be safer this way.  If we wait by
> default, we are forced to check that all references are dropped and will
> have a stack dump indicating which object is causing problem when
> something goes wrong, which is better than silent object leaking and/or
> jumping to non-existent address way later.

I agree that oopsing is bad. However, lingering references are not
always coding errors. What if it will just take long for a reference to
be given up? You'd have a hanging device_unregister(), with no
particular gain.

> 
> I personally think all driver interface should be made this way such
> that completion of unregister function guarantees no further access to
> the object or module.  IMHO, it's more intuitive and easier to force
> correctness.

If we really did this, we should also provide a non-waiting alternative.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/