On Tue, Oct 18, 2005 at 08:45:12PM -0700, Pete Zaitcev wrote: > On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 20:28:48 -0700, Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Any objections to me adding this? > > > > > > No objections. You do add a lock which wasn't there before, but it > > > seems that usbmon at least is not affected. It does not call much > > > from initialization and tear-down functions, so I do not see an > > > opportunity for deadlocks. > > > > What lock did I add? > > Woops, I assumed that notifier_call_chain had one inside. It was > inconceivable to me that you would neglect to lock the chain. > > Very well, what does prevent a module to call usb_register_notify > (on a context of a modprobe) in the same time as khubd is adding > a new device and is walking the chain with usb_notify_device_add()?
It looks like it's safe to walk the list and add a new notifier at the same time. Take a look at kernel/sys.c::notifier_chain_register() to see if I missed something. Or am I wrong? thanks, greg k-h ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: Power Architecture Resource Center: Free content, downloads, discussions, and more. http://solutions.newsforge.com/ibmarch.tmpl _______________________________________________ [email protected] To unsubscribe, use the last form field at: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
