Hello,
On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 12:10:45PM +0800, Li Zhong wrote:
> @@ -439,6 +439,7 @@ static ssize_t online_store(struct device *dev, struct
> device_attribute *attr,
> {
> bool val;
> int ret;
> + struct kernfs_node *kn;
>
> ret = strtobool(buf, &val);
> if (ret < 0)
> @@ -448,7 +449,15 @@ static ssize_t online_store(struct device *dev, struct
> device_attribute *attr,
> if (ret)
> return ret;
>
> + kn = kernfs_find_and_get(dev->kobj.sd, attr->attr.name);
Wouldn't find_and_get need to be paired with put?
> + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!kn))
> + goto out;
> +
> + kernfs_break_active_protection(kn);
> +
> ret = val ? device_online(dev) : device_offline(dev);
With active protection protection @dev may go away at any time. There
should be some protection / synchronization to prevent that, no?
> + kernfs_unbreak_active_protection(kn);
> +out:
> unlock_device_hotplug();
> return ret < 0 ? ret : count;
> }
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
