From: Alex Chiang <achiang@hp.com>
To: Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@de.ibm.com>
Cc: Greg KH <gregkh@suse.de>, Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@gmail.com>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org, tj@kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH, RFC] sysfs: only allow one scheduled removal callback per kobj
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 15:33:11 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090312213311.GB31042@ldl.fc.hp.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090312112536.734ca15b@gondolin>
* Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@de.ibm.com>:
> On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 Alex Chiang <achiang@hp.com> wrote:
>
> > * Greg KH <gregkh@suse.de>:
> > > On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > > > (For the original oops, I'd rather solve the problem by
> > > > making sure the caller doesn't trigger removal several
> > > > times - should probably be less code than the proposed
> > > > patch?)
> > >
> > > Any ideas on how to do this?
> >
> > I still think the original patch I proposed is the right
> > answer.
>
> How about just putting a marker on your device that is going to
> be unregistered and refusing to schedule it again? (This marker
> could also be used to block other undesired actions; that's
> what ccwgroup does.)
I looked at what ccwgroup does, and you're right that it's a
smaller patch, and easy to implement.
But I still think that it makes more sense to fix the underlying
sysfs_schedule_callback() interface, rather than asking all the
callers to implement their own exclusion mechanisms.
Thanks.
/ac
prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-03-12 21:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-03-10 23:20 Alex Chiang
2009-03-11 4:41 ` Greg KH
2009-03-11 7:03 ` Alex Chiang
2009-03-11 7:20 ` Tejun Heo
2009-03-12 0:27 ` Alex Chiang
2009-03-12 3:22 ` Greg KH
2009-03-12 22:02 ` Alex Chiang
2009-03-13 12:03 ` Cornelia Huck
2009-03-13 18:08 ` Alex Chiang
2009-03-11 15:32 ` Greg KH
2009-03-11 17:47 ` Cornelia Huck
2009-03-11 18:14 ` Alex Chiang
2009-03-11 18:19 ` Greg KH
2009-03-11 18:42 ` Alex Chiang
2009-03-12 10:25 ` Cornelia Huck
2009-03-12 21:33 ` Alex Chiang [this message]
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=20090312213311.GB31042@ldl.fc.hp.com \
--to=achiang@hp.com \
--cc=cornelia.huck@de.ibm.com \
--cc=gregkh@suse.de \
--cc=jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=penberg@cs.helsinki.fi \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=vegard.nossum@gmail.com \
/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
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®