On Wed, 6 Apr 2005, Patrick Mochel wrote: > > Third, why does device_release_driver() call klist_del() instead of > > klist_remove() for dev->knode_driver? Is that just a simple mistake? > > The klist_node doesn't seem to get unlinked anywhere. > > It can be called from driver_for_each_device() when the driver has been > unloaded. Since that increments the reference count for the node when it's > unregistering it, klist_remove() will deadlock. Instead klist_del() is > called, and when the next node is grabbed, that one will be let go and > removed from the list.
The patch looks good. But isn't there still a problem with device_release_driver()? It doesn't wait for the klist_node to be removed from the klist before unlocking the device and moving on. As a result, if another driver was waiting to bind to the device you would corrupt the list pointers, by calling klist_add_tail() for the new driver before klist_release() had run for the old driver. I'll be interested to see how you manage to solve this. The only way I can think of is to avoid using driver_for_each_device() in driver_detach(). Alan Stern - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
