On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 11:25:56AM +0300, Matan Barak wrote: > > > On 4/26/2015 11:10 PM, Or Gerlitz wrote: > >On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 12:19 AM, Somnath Kotur > ><somnath.ko...@emulex.com> wrote: > >>From: Matan Barak <mat...@mellanox.com> > >> > >>Previously. we used device_mutex lock in order to protect > >>the device's list. That means that in order to guarantee a > >>device isn't freed while we use it, we had to lock all > >>devices. > > > >Matan, looking on the cover letter, it says: "[...] Patch 0002 adds a > >reference count mechanism to IB devices. This mechanism is similar to > >dev_hold and dev_put available for net devices. This is mandatory for > >later patches [...]" > > > >So in that respect, saying here "Previously. we used device_mutex > >lock" is a bit cryptic, @ least one typo must exist in this sentence, > >right? did you want to say "Currently we use device_mutex lock for XXX > >[...] and this should be replaced as of a YYY change which is to be > >introduced [...]" please clarify > > Correct, I'll change that into: > > Currently we use device_mutex lock for protecting the device's list. > In the current approach, in order to guarantee a device isn't freed > we have to lock all devices. > > Adding a kref per IB device. Before an IB device is unregistered, we > wait until it's not held anymore.
Why do we need two krefs for this structure? There is already a kref inside the embedded 'struct device dev' Sounds wrong to me without a lot more explanation. Jason -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
