On Fri, Aug 05, 2011 at 10:24:55 +0100, Martyn Welch wrote:
> I think that by refcounting the resources being used we
> will know whether a bridge module is being used or not,
> thus whether it can be unloaded or not.
But the granularity is wrong; if you want to know whether the
bridge is being used, just keep track of the devices *which
want to make known* that they're under the bridge.
> By reference counting the use of resources we minimise the
> chance of poorly written drivers using resources, but not
> registering the fact that they are in fact using a VME bridge.
A driver leaking a resource will then leave a bogus refcount
on the bus driver--a clear case of self-inflicted pain.
The argument of "poorly written drivers" does not apply;
I would expect all the merged drivers to be "good quality"
only, that's why we want to be upstream and why we put effort
in reviewing. Your point is well-intentioned, but in
practice we'd be shooting ourselves in the foot, potentially
ending up with an unremovable vme bridge module--which is
worse than a driver leaking a resource.
Refcounting must be kept simple & stupid; doing it behind the
backs of the drivers we're trying to protect is a mistake.
Emilio
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
