Re: various vmbus review comments

[Greg KH <gregkh@suse.de>]

On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 01:00:26PM +0000, KY Srinivasan wrote:
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Christoph Hellwig [mailto:hch@infradead.org]
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2011 1:24 AM
> > To: KY Srinivasan
> > Cc: Christoph Hellwig; Greg KH; gregkh@suse.de; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org;
> > devel@linuxdriverproject.org; virtualization@lists.osdl.org
> > 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.

That's how the Linux driver model should be used, so yes, that is the
correct thing to do.

thanks,

greg k-h