Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] sysfs: allow suicide

[Alex Chiang <achiang@hp.com>]

* Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com>:
> 
> Interesting.
> 
> Fixing a read/writer deadlock by allowing the writers to nest
> inside the readers.
> 
> My first impression is that it is too clever.

Clever points go to Tejun. All I did was refresh the series
slightly. :)

> Furthermore I think this is walking around the edges of a more
> general problem.   How should we serial hotplug and hotunplug
> in general.  In what context should remove methods run in.
> 
> My impression is that we have a huge hole in our infrastructure
> for hotplug drivers.  Problems like how do we get a user space
> context for the code to run in and how do we handle
> multiple hotplug actions for overlapping device trees from
> stomping on each other.
> 
> My hypothesis is once we solve this for the general case of
> device hotplug and removal we won't need special support from
> sysfs.  At least not in the suicidal way.

I agree that we have problems in our infrastructure, especially,
as you point out, overlapping device trees, etc.

I see your point about adding extra cruft into sysfs to work
around a special case while leaving the hard problem unsolved.

Perhaps the status quo is better. I do think that getting
suicidal sysfs attributes off the global workqueue is a band-aid
that actually helps, vs. the proposed patches here which are
questionable in nature.

Oh well.

Thanks for the comments.

/ac

> 
> We still have very weird cases such as the lock inversion that
> we have today between rtnl_lock and active reference count,
> coming from the networking code.
> 
> Eric
>