On Mon, 2014-08-11 at 16:22 +0800, Greg KH wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 09:10:35AM +0200, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> > On Thu, 2014-08-07 at 20:31 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > > On Fri, Aug 08, 2014 at 10:56:57AM +0800, w wrote:
> > > >
> > > > If use symlinks it can work well.
> > > >
> > > > But why program in userspace can prevent driver release the node?
> > > > The program just open the node, nothing else.
> > >
> > > If it holds the node open, of course the kernel can't release it, the
> > > resource is still in use. That's the way it is supposed to be, don't
> > > you agree?
> >
> > Actually on second thought, why? While the device is open there's an
> > obvious reason to not throw away an fd and its associated baggage.
> > But why the device node?
>
> Because it's easier that way for the kernel code :)
I doubt it. It is more obvious, but it isn't easier.
Generically removing the possibility of an attempt to
open a disconnected device or do any operation on
it should make device drivers simpler.
> > That would be necessary only if you were to use the number as an
> > index.
>
> It shouldn't be, so we can change this in the driver core if it's really
> an issue. So far, no one has objected to it.
I seem to recall quite some complaints.
Regards
Oliver
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
