RE: various vmbus review comments

From: KY Srinivasan
Date: Tue May 10 2011 - 09:00:30 EST




> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christoph Hellwig [mailto:hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2011 1:24 AM
> To: KY Srinivasan
> Cc: Christoph Hellwig; Greg KH; gregkh@xxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: various vmbus review comments
>
> On Mon, May 09, 2011 at 02:56:52PM +0000, KY Srinivasan wrote:
> > I will address this. Greg had a concern about module reference counting
> > and looking at the current code, it did not appear to be an issue. The
> > change you are suggesting will not affect the vmbus core which is what I want
> > to focus on. I will however, fix this issue in the current round of patches I will
> > send out this week.
>
> It very clearly affects the interface between the core and the
> functional drivers. Trying to submit the core without making sure the
> interface is exports works properly is not an overly good idea.

I must be missing something here. As I look at the block driver (and
this is indicative of other drivers as well); the exit routine -
blkvsc_drv_exit, first iterates through all the devices it manages
and invokes device_unregister() on each of the devices and then
invokes vmbus_child_driver_unregister() which is just a wrapper on
driver_unregister(). So, if I understand you correctly, you want the devices to
persist even if there is no driver bound to them. So, if I eliminated the code
that iterates over the devices and unregisters them, that should fix the problem
and I can do this without changing the vmbus core interfaces.

Regards,

K. Y


--
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/