From: Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@metafoo.de>
To: Alessandro Zummo <a.zummo@towertech.it>
Cc: Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@oracle.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>,
rtc-linux@googlegroups.com, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: kernfs/rtc: circular dependency between kernfs and ops_lock
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2014 14:19:23 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <53395D4B.1010805@metafoo.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140331140344.6030c7da@linux.lan.towertech.it>
On 03/31/2014 02:03 PM, Alessandro Zummo wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Mar 2014 13:07:10 +0200
> Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@metafoo.de> wrote:
>
>> It doesn't really matter where it is unregistered. device_unregister() will
>> (somewhere down it's callchain) take the kernfs lock, hence it must be
>> callled with the rtc mutex being held.
>
> Maybe device_remove_attrs could be called in the rtc base class,
> before the device removal?
>
Just move the device_unregister() call outside the lock. I think the only
thing that needs to be protected is the ops = NULL assignment. Moving the
unregister after the unlock also means that the extra
get_device()/put_device() pair can be removed.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-03-31 12:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-02-22 17:51 kernfs/rtc: circular dependency between kernfs and ops_lock Sasha Levin
2014-02-22 20:52 ` Tejun Heo
2014-02-24 11:04 ` Alessandro Zummo
2014-03-25 21:52 ` Sasha Levin
2014-03-25 22:39 ` Alessandro Zummo
2014-03-26 0:19 ` Sasha Levin
2014-03-30 0:28 ` Sasha Levin
2014-03-30 16:04 ` Sasha Levin
2014-03-31 9:46 ` Alessandro Zummo
2014-03-31 9:52 ` Lars-Peter Clausen
2014-03-31 10:43 ` Alessandro Zummo
2014-03-31 11:07 ` Lars-Peter Clausen
2014-03-31 12:03 ` Alessandro Zummo
2014-03-31 12:19 ` Lars-Peter Clausen [this message]
2014-04-02 22:51 ` Sasha Levin
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=53395D4B.1010805@metafoo.de \
--to=lars@metafoo.de \
--cc=a.zummo@towertech.it \
--cc=greg@kroah.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rtc-linux@googlegroups.com \
--cc=sasha.levin@oracle.com \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
/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