On 08/02/2013 03:06 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote: > 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. >
Ah, yes, you are right. > @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]> > Regards, Srivatsa S. Bhat -- 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/
