On 2 August 2013 12:19, Srivatsa S. Bhat <[email protected]> wrote: > On 08/02/2013 10:07 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote: >> So, we can't rmmod the module as soon as it is inserted and so the >> problem stays as is. :( >> > > No, we get one step closer to the solution, since we fix the inconsistency > between refcounts. Next step would be to get rid of refcounts and use > locking like you suggested. Then we can rmmod it easily. I'm assuming > Rafael has the same plan.
Not really. We are putting the reference at the end of add_dev() and so refcount would be zero when we aren't running any critical sections. And so, we can rmmod the module now and that problem is gone. @Rafael: I will try to do generic cleanups in cpufreq in coming time and will take care to remove .owner field completely in that. Until that point your patches look fine: For both of your patches: Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <[email protected]> -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
