On 8/12/19 4:26 PM, Max Staudt wrote: > On 08/12/2019 02:15 PM, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote: >>> What's a good way to do that, given that we now have module_exit()> defined >>> and an exit function is void? >> >> What about something like this: >> >> static bool xsurf_present; >> ... >> static int __init pata_buddha_late_init(void) >> ... >> if (pata_buddha_probe(z, &xsurf_ent) == 0 && >> xsurf_present == false) >> xsurf_present = true; >> ... >> static void __exit pata_buddha_exit(void) >> ... >> if (xsurf_present) >> return -EBUSY; >> ... >> >> ? > > Okay, so we're talking about the same idea. Great! > > Unfortunately, pata_buddha_exit() is void, and thus can't fail. According to > Documentation/kernel-hacking/hacking.rst this is by design.
You are of course right and the example code is broken (+ I need more caffeine). > Any other ideas? We could also continue to disallow unloading completely > until MFD support comes along. Yes, this would also be OK. Best regards, -- Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz Samsung R&D Institute Poland Samsung Electronics
