From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262415AbUCCIFt (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Mar 2004 03:05:49 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262414AbUCCIFt (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Mar 2004 03:05:49 -0500 Received: from thebsh.namesys.com ([212.16.7.65]:30914 "HELO thebsh.namesys.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S262415AbUCCIFn (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Mar 2004 03:05:43 -0500 Subject: Re: Does the block layer prevent races between open() and unregister()? From: "Yury V. Umanets" To: Alan Stern Cc: Jens Axboe , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain Organization: NAMESYS Message-Id: <1078301208.3493.8.camel@firefly> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.5 (1.4.5-7) Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2004 10:06:48 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, 2004-02-28 at 06:05, Alan Stern wrote: > A classic race that all drivers for hot-unpluggable devices have to deal > with is the race between open() and unregister() (or disconnect()). > > Does the block layer have any mechanism to prevent such races? Or does it > rely on the lower-level drivers handling such things by themselves? According to usb-skel driver, nobody cares about. > > Alan Stern > > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ -- umka