On Wed, 2012-06-20 at 10:48 -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> Yes, I was assuming the caller held a reference to the struct device to
> prevent such a race, looks like I forgot to document that in the
> comments. I'll have to think about if we can fix the ordering problem.
> We can re-order the list_add vs notification, but then we just risk
> dropping the remove. Perhaps we need to extend the lock or add another
> to group {list add, notify add}, {list lookup, remove, notify remove}.
> I'm not even sure this race is possible though w/ a device reference.
Or we put the burden on the callers not to racily add & remove,
including full completion of related notifiers. Might not even be hard
(ie might already be the case).
Cheers,
Ben.
_______________________________________________
iommu mailing list
iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu
