From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Patrick Mansfield Subject: Re: oops when removing sbp2 module Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2003 20:36:06 -0700 Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <20031005203606.A3829@beaverton.ibm.com> References: <16256.6322.388402.857084@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com> <20031005074902.A26284@beaverton.ibm.com> <16256.56491.671416.205944@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from e4.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.104]:27581 "EHLO e4.ny.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263968AbTJFDhH (ORCPT ); Sun, 5 Oct 2003 23:37:07 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <16256.56491.671416.205944@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com>; from paulus@samba.org on Mon, Oct 06, 2003 at 01:08:27PM +1000 List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Paul Mackerras Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux1394-devel@lists.sourceforge.net On Mon, Oct 06, 2003 at 01:08:27PM +1000, Paul Mackerras wrote: > That fixes it, it no longer oopses on removing sbp2. As before I get > a message saying "Device 'fw-host0' does not have a release() > function, it is broken and must be fixed." I assume that is a problem > with the sbp2 module. > > The code in the patch looks a little worrying to me, though. Is there > some lock we have taken to ensure that no other process could be > modifying sdev->access_count at the same time? Also, what is to stop > some other process from noticing that sdev->access_count is 0 and > calling device_del(&sdev->sdev_gendev) ? Yes, it's a known problem, there is also a comment in the code, Christoph was working on it. -- Patrick Mansfield