Re: Incorrect uses of get_driver()/put_driver()

[Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk]

On Mon, Jan 09, 2012 at 12:35:09PM -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
> The get_driver() and put_driver() routines in the device core are not
> documented well, and what they really do is quite different from what
> people might think they do.  In particular, get_driver() does not
> prevent a driver from being unregistered or unloaded -- the API which 
> comes closest to doing that is try_module_get().
> 
> In fact, get_driver() and put_driver() are pretty much useless for
> normal purposes, and Dmitry and I have been discussing getting rid of
> them entirely.  But first we need to make sure that doing so won't mess
> anything up.
> 
> The purpose of this email is to check with the maintainers of the
> various drivers that seem to be using these routines in questionable
> ways, to make sure nothing will go wrong.  Here are the places we have 
> identified:
> 
> lib/dma-debug.c:173:  drv = get_driver(dev->driver);
> lib/dma-debug.c:188:  put_driver(drv);
> 
> Joerg, these calls don't seem to do anything, as far as I can tell.  
> Is there any reason to keep them?
> 
> drivers/pci/xen-pcifront.c:596:       if (get_driver(&pdrv->driver)) {
> drivers/pci/xen-pcifront.c:626:               put_driver(&pdrv->driver);
> 
> Konrad, these calls don't seem to do anything either.
> 

Looks like they should be replaced with the try_module_get() equivalant
for the 'struct pci_driver'? Is there such one?
--
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/