From: Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To: "David E. Box" <david.e.box@linux.intel.com>
Cc: lee.jones@linaro.org, hdegoede@redhat.com,
mgross@linux.intel.com, andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com,
srinivas.pandruvada@intel.com, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] platform/x86: Add Intel Software Defined Silicon driver
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2021 06:48:02 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YVKeglYilJvqp1jk@kroah.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <10bee4a609c48b8e10458c25755f17222c43c33c.camel@linux.intel.com>
On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 10:53:09AM -0700, David E. Box wrote:
> On Mon, 2021-09-27 at 06:03 +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Sun, Sep 26, 2021 at 06:15:16PM -0700, David E. Box wrote:
> > > > > +static int sdsi_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > + struct sdsi_priv *priv = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
> > > > > +
> > > > > + priv->dev_present = false;
> > > > > + sysfs_remove_bin_file(&priv->pdev->dev.kobj, &priv->registers_bin_attr);
> > > > > + misc_deregister(&priv->miscdev);
> > > > > + kref_put(&priv->kref, sdsi_priv_release);
> > > >
> > > > Why do you need a kref for a structure that already can be controlled by
> > > > a different lifetime rule?
> > >
> > > Which rule am I missing? This kref allows the structure to remain in case the device is removed
> > > while the file is open.
> >
> > This device is on a hardware bus that allows removal?
>
> Well the device can be unbound. A test case covers this.
Great, where are these tests? Why not add them to the kernel tree
itself in the proper location?
And in the real-world, who would ever unbind this?
> > Anyway, you now are dealing with lifetime rules of 3 structures all at
> > once, and the interactions between them is not very obvious. It would
> > probably be simpler just to stick with 2, right? You really only care
> > about the misc structure here.
>
> In the case that the device is unbound, both the pdev and miscdev go away. Something has to outlive
> them in order to handle any open files still trying to use the ioctl.
I do not think that the miscdev goes away if the file handle is still
open, right?
thanks,
greg k-h
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-09-28 4:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-09-24 21:31 [PATCH 1/2] Documentation: Update ioctl-number.rst for Intel Software Defined Silicon interface David E. Box
2021-09-24 21:31 ` [PATCH 2/2] platform/x86: Add Intel Software Defined Silicon driver David E. Box
2021-09-25 6:27 ` Greg KH
2021-09-27 1:15 ` David E. Box
2021-09-27 4:03 ` Greg KH
2021-09-27 17:53 ` David E. Box
2021-09-28 4:48 ` Greg KH [this message]
2021-09-27 4:04 ` Greg KH
2021-09-27 17:27 ` David E. Box
2021-09-27 17:36 ` Greg KH
2021-09-25 14:46 ` Greg KH
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=YVKeglYilJvqp1jk@kroah.com \
--to=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com \
--cc=david.e.box@linux.intel.com \
--cc=hdegoede@redhat.com \
--cc=lee.jones@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mgross@linux.intel.com \
--cc=platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=srinivas.pandruvada@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).