From: Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>
To: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
Cc: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@SteelEye.com>,
Kernel development list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: BUG(?): class_device_driver_link()
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 13:23:05 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20040618202305.GB18008@kroah.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.0406181502020.702-100000@ida.rowland.org>
On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 04:12:32PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> Greg:
>
> I'm not sure if this is a bug or not, but it is inconsistent behavior in
> sysfs.
>
> When a class_device is added, if it has a regular device associated with
> it and that device has a driver, a symlink is added from the class_device
> to the driver. However, if the class_device is added _first_ and the
> driver later, this symlink is not created. It's not clear that there's
> any good way to create it, especially if the class_device is added by the
> bus layer and the device driver itself is unaware of the class_device.
Yes, this is the way it was designed. The thinking was that a device
would be registered to a driver by the time the class code was
initialized for it.
> Is this a known problem? It definitely affects the sd driver, and maybe
> others.
The sd use of classes is a monumental hack. So much that every time I
see one of them in the hall at work I run the other way just to avoid
talking about it again :)
No, seriously, if this is a problem for the sd driver, we should fix it.
> There is a related side-effect that is a bit unpleasant. The symlink from
> the class_device to the driver increments the driver's refcount.
Yes, that is a recent change.
> Since
> the driver is unaware of the class_device, it doesn't know to remove the
> symlink when its release() method runs.
The symlink should be removed by the class, right?
> Consequently, if the driver is
> modprobed before the device exists and rmmod'ed after the device is added,
> the rmmod will hang until the device also goes away. But if the driver is
> modprobed _after_ the device exists then the rmmod will complete
> immediately.
>
> Perhaps the answer is that the bus layer must take these things into
> account. Or perhaps a struct device should somehow know about all the
> class_devices that refer to it.
Hm, I was not wanting to have to have struct device know about classes,
only classes knowing about struct devices. Any input here would be
appreciated.
thanks,
greg k-h
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-06-18 20:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-06-18 20:12 Alan Stern
2004-06-18 20:23 ` Greg KH [this message]
2004-06-18 21:36 ` Alan Stern
2004-06-19 0:03 ` Greg KH
2004-06-19 3:28 ` James Bottomley
2004-06-20 22:23 ` Alan Stern
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=20040618202305.GB18008@kroah.com \
--to=greg@kroah.com \
--cc=James.Bottomley@SteelEye.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=stern@rowland.harvard.edu \
/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
Powered by JetHome