Am Montag, 4. Dezember 2006 17:06 schrieb Alan Stern:
> On Mon, 4 Dec 2006, Maneesh Soni wrote:
>
> > hmm, I guess Greg has to say the final word. The question is either to fail
> > the IO (-ENODEV) or fail the file removal (-EBUSY). If we are not going to
> > fail the removal then your patch is the way to go.
> >
> > Greg?
>
> Oliver is right that we cannot allow device_remove_file() to fail. In
> fact we can't even allow it to block until all the existing open file
> references are closed.
Yes, we must have an upper bound with respect to time.
> Our major questions have to do with the details of the patch itself. In
> particular, we are worried about possible races with the VFS and the
> handling of the inode's usage count. Can you examine the patch carefully
> to see if it is okay?
>
> Also, Oliver, it looks like the latest version of your patch makes an
> unnecessary change to sysfs_remove_file().
Code like:
int d(int a, int b)
{
return a + b;
}
int c(int a, int b)
{
return d(a, b);
}
is a detrimental to correct understanding and thence coding.
In fact reading sysfs source code is like jumping all around the kernel
tree. Such changes made it readable by normal people. I have to
understand which method I am coding on to do reasonable work. ;-)
Regards
Oliver
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
_______________________________________________
[email protected]
To unsubscribe, use the last form field at:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
