Re: [GPIO]implement sleeping GPIO chip removal

[Grant Likely <grant.likely@secretlab.ca>]

On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 10:07:05PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Can you please use a mail client which does proper line breaks at 78 ?
> 
> On Wed, 10 Nov 2010, Maciej Szmigiero wrote:
> > You misunderstood me.
> 
> No, I didnt.
> 
> > By "looping in hope that somebody will finally release the chip" I
> > meant the only real way to handle a GPIO chip unplugging in the
> > current kernel.  Which is way worse that preventing new requests,
> > then waiting for existing one to be released.  And this is exactly
> > what my patch does.
> 
> That still does not make it a good solution.
> 
> > I understand that it could be simplified by removing redundant code
> > (as Grant Likely had suggested before), and moving it to completion
> > interface instead of manipulating a task structure directly, but
> > this doesn't mean that the whole GPIO code has to be rewritten just
> > to add one functionality.
> 
> It's not about rewriting, it's about fixing the problem in the right
> way and not just hacking around it.
> 
> If we see a shortcoming like this, we fix it and do not magically work
> around it.

+1

Thomas is right.  kobject reference counting is the correct solution.
Nack on this approach.

g.