On Thu, 13 Nov, at 02:51:28AM, Kweh, Hock Leong wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > First of all, I would like to apologize if my commit message gives you guys > an impression > that to use request_firmware_abort(), you guys MUST do the synchronization on > your own. > But the fact is, it is not a MUST. Below will provide more detail. > > Regarding this synchronization topic, I would like to open a discussion to > get a > better approach to handle this problem. Before jumping onto the design, I > would > like to give a background of why I am doing in this way. > > - Only doing module unload is required to be aware of this synchronization > -> Ensuring the call back does not fall into unloaded code which may > cause > undefined behavior. > -> Ensuring the put_device() & module_put() code have finished in > firmware_class.c > function request_firmware_work_func() before the device is > unregistered > and module unloaded happen.
Shouldn't the existing module_{put,get}() and {put,get}_device() calls provide all the necessary synchronisation? Module unload should not be possible while other code is using the module (and the module refcnt has been incremented accordindly). Right? -- Matt Fleming, Intel Open Source Technology Center -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-efi" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html