Re: [PATCH] Try 2, Fix release function in IPMI device model

[Corey Minyard]

Dmitry Torokhov wrote:

>On 3/22/06, Greg KH <greg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>  
>
>>On Wed, Mar 22, 2006 at 02:45:01PM -0600, Corey Minyard wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>Ok, one more try.  Russell, I assume you mean to use
>>>platform_device_alloc(), which seems to do what you suggested.
>>>And I assume the driver_data is the way to store whatever you
>>>need, instead of using the container_of() macro.
>>>
>>>Arjun, Russell, thanks for the info.
>>>
>>>Now the patch...
>>>
>>>Arjun van de Ven pointed out that the changeover to the driver model
>>>in the IPMI driver had some bugs in it dealing with the release
>>>function and cleanup.  Then Russell King pointed out that you can't
>>>put release functions in the same module as the unregistering code.
>>>      
>>>
>>Yes you can, you just have to properly set up the module attribute
>>owners and it will work just fine.
>>
>>    
>>
>
>No, not really. You can only do that if _all_ sysfs attributes for the
>object are handled in your driver which is rarely the case (dev,
>/power/* attributes, etc).
>  
>
I don't see an owner field in the device structure.  So you are
saying that if the same module owns the device_driver structure,
it is safe, but if not it is not safe.

-Corey
-
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/