From: Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@metafoo.de>
To: "Ivan T. Ivanov" <iivanov@mm-sol.com>
Cc: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@kernel.org>,
Hartmut Knaack <knaack.h@gmx.de>,
Peter Meerwald <pmeerw@pmeerw.net>,
linux-iio@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] iio: Simplify IIO provider access locking mechanism
Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2015 17:16:57 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <54AFFEF9.5080408@metafoo.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1420820083.28652.7.camel@mm-sol.com>
On 01/09/2015 05:14 PM, Ivan T. Ivanov wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2015-01-09 at 16:54 +0100, Lars-Peter Clausen wrote:
>> On 01/09/2015 04:50 PM, Ivan T. Ivanov wrote:
>>> On Fri, 2015-01-09 at 16:41 +0100, Lars-Peter Clausen wrote:
>>>> On 01/09/2015 04:38 PM, Ivan T. Ivanov wrote:
>>>>> Instead of checking whether provider module is still
>>>>> loaded on every access to device just lock module to
>>>>> memory when client get reference to provider device.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This has nothing to do with the module, it's about the device. In the Linux
>>>> device driver model as device can be unbound at any time and the IIO
>>>> framework needs to handle this.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Hm. Probably i am missing something here, but is this
>>> still true if we have reference to device structure?
>>
>> Yes, that only prevents the memory of device from being freed. But the
>> device can still be unbound from the driver.
>>
>> Think of e.g. a USB device that is pulled from the USB connector. Nothing
>> you can do in software about having the device disappear.
>>
>
> Agree, but I think that the patch is still valid. Module
> have to be pinned in memory as long as there are device
> driver users.
No, the idea of the Linux driver model is that you can remove the module of
a driver at any time, which will unbind the device from the driver. Once you
reinsert the module the device will be re-bound to the driver.
- Lars
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-01-09 16:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-01-09 15:38 [PATCH] iio: Simplify IIO provider access locking mechanism Ivan T. Ivanov
2015-01-09 15:41 ` Lars-Peter Clausen
2015-01-09 15:50 ` Ivan T. Ivanov
2015-01-09 15:54 ` Lars-Peter Clausen
2015-01-09 16:14 ` Ivan T. Ivanov
2015-01-09 16:16 ` Lars-Peter Clausen [this message]
2015-01-12 13:54 ` Ivan T. Ivanov
2015-01-12 16:11 ` Lars-Peter Clausen
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=54AFFEF9.5080408@metafoo.de \
--to=lars@metafoo.de \
--cc=iivanov@mm-sol.com \
--cc=jic23@kernel.org \
--cc=knaack.h@gmx.de \
--cc=linux-iio@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pmeerw@pmeerw.net \
/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).