On Mon, 4 Dec 2006, Maneesh Soni wrote: > hmm, I guess Greg has to say the final word. The question is either to fail > the IO (-ENODEV) or fail the file removal (-EBUSY). If we are not going to > fail the removal then your patch is the way to go. > > Greg?
Oliver is right that we cannot allow device_remove_file() to fail. In fact we can't even allow it to block until all the existing open file references are closed. Our major questions have to do with the details of the patch itself. In particular, we are worried about possible races with the VFS and the handling of the inode's usage count. Can you examine the patch carefully to see if it is okay? Also, Oliver, it looks like the latest version of your patch makes an unnecessary change to sysfs_remove_file(). Alan Stern ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ linux-usb-devel@lists.sourceforge.net To unsubscribe, use the last form field at: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
