Re: [PATCH RFD] alternative kobject release wait mechanism

[Cornelia Huck]

On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 10:58:45 -0400 (EDT),
Alan Stern <stern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> > > > The remove() method must also unset driver_data.
> > > 
> > > It doesn't really have to.  The driver core could do it.
> > 
> > I think it is more consistent if the driver takes care of the fields
> > specifically designed for its usage.
> 
> Yes.  However if the driver forgets to clear the field it shouldn't cause
> a warning.  After all, there won't be any harm; the next driver to bind 
> to the device will just overwrite the driver_data anyway.

Agreed, but it is still a good practice and should be recommended.

> > Yes. Especially since the "gone"-field may be contained in that
> > embedding structure if the subsystem controls it.
> 
> No, no!  The "gone" flag must be in the private data structure.  If it 
> were in a container of the device structure, then it could be overwritten 
> when a different driver binds to the device.

Argl, thinko again. You're right, of course.
-
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/