On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 18:35:52 +0200 Jean Delvare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Good point. i2c_dev is guaranteed to stay thanks to the call to > i2c_get_adapter(), however it happens _after_ the call to > i2c_dev_get_by_minor(), so without additional locking, this is racy. > That being said, I'm not sure how lock_kernel() is supposed to help. > Is the BKL held when i2cdev_detach_adapter() is called? If not, then I > suspect that the current code is already racy. A quick look suggests that there will be no BKL protection for i2cdev_detach_adapter(). So, yes, I think it doesn't help here. jon _______________________________________________ i2c mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/i2c
