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

[Michael BÃsch]

On Mon, 9 Jan 2012 17:44:24 -0500 (EST)
Alan Stern <stern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Mon, 9 Jan 2012, Michael BÃsch wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, 9 Jan 2012 14:48:15 -0500 (EST)
> > Alan Stern <stern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 
> > > Maybe you want to call device_lock(&sdev->dev) here?  It will prevent
> > > the driver from being unbound (and therefore from being unloaded), and
> > > it's likely that sdrv's remove and probe routines expect to be called
> > > with this lock held, because that's what the device core does.  The
> > > drawback is that holding the lock prevents other things from happening
> > > as well, like unregistering sdev.
> > > 
> > > Alternatively, we can simply remove ssb_driver_get/put.
> > 
> > I think in practice it doesn't matter. This function is only
> > used in the rare case where the EEPROM on the board is written.
> 
> Okay, then we can just remove those calls and not worry about it for
> now, right?

This would be acceptable.

-- 
Greetings, Michael.
--
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/