From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752426AbcAEXy5 (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Jan 2016 18:54:57 -0500 Received: from mail-wm0-f44.google.com ([74.125.82.44]:36815 "EHLO mail-wm0-f44.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752064AbcAEXy0 (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Jan 2016 18:54:26 -0500 Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2016 00:54:21 +0100 From: "Steinar H. Gunderson" To: Alan Stern Cc: "Kirill A. Shutemov" , linux-mm@kvack.org, Kernel development list , David Laight , "linux-usb@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: Does vm_operations_struct require a .owner field? Message-ID: <20160105235418.GA1599@imap.gmail.com> References: <20160105205812.GA24738@node.shutemov.name> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jan 05, 2016 at 04:31:09PM -0500, Alan Stern wrote: > Thank you. So it looks like I was worried about nothing. > > Steinar, you can remove the try_module_get/module_put lines from your > patch. Also, the list_del() and comment in usbdev_release() aren't > needed -- at that point we know the memory_list has to be empty since > there can't be any outstanding URBs or VMA references. If you take > those things out then the patch should be ready for merging. Good, thanks. Did so, compiled, testing it still works, sending :-) /* Steinar */ -- Software Engineer, Google Switzerland