[PATCH 0/5] Get rid of get_driver() and put_driver()

2012-01-24 Thread Alan Stern
Greg:

This patch series removes the get_driver() and put_driver() routines
from the kernel.

Those routines don't do anything useful.  Their comments say that they
increment and decrement the driver's reference count, just like
get_device()/put_device() and a lot of other utility routines.  But a
struct driver is _not_ like a struct device!  It resembles a piece of
code more than a piece of data -- it acts as an encapsulation of a
driver.  Incrementing its refcount doesn't have much meaning because a
driver's lifetime isn't determined by the structure's refcount; it's
determined by when the driver's module gets unloaded.

What really matters for a driver is whether or not it is registered.  
Drivers expect, for example, that none of their methods will be called
after driver_unregister() returns.  It doesn't matter if some other
thread still holds a reference to the driver structure; that reference
mustn't be used for accessing the driver code after unregistration.  
get_driver() does not do any checking for this.

People may have been misled by the kerneldoc into thinking that the
references obtained by get_driver() do somehow pin the driver structure
in memory.  This simply isn't true; all it pins is the associated
private structure.  Code that needs to pin a driver must do it some
other way (probably by calling try_module_get()).

In short, these routines don't do anything useful and they can actively 
mislead people.  Removing them won't introduce any bugs that aren't 
already present.  There is no reason to keep them.

Alan Stern

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-media in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html


Re: [PATCH 0/5] Get rid of get_driver() and put_driver()

2012-01-24 Thread Greg KH
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 01:33:37PM -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
 Greg:
 
 This patch series removes the get_driver() and put_driver() routines
 from the kernel.
 
 Those routines don't do anything useful.  Their comments say that they
 increment and decrement the driver's reference count, just like
 get_device()/put_device() and a lot of other utility routines.  But a
 struct driver is _not_ like a struct device!  It resembles a piece of
 code more than a piece of data -- it acts as an encapsulation of a
 driver.  Incrementing its refcount doesn't have much meaning because a
 driver's lifetime isn't determined by the structure's refcount; it's
 determined by when the driver's module gets unloaded.
 
 What really matters for a driver is whether or not it is registered.  
 Drivers expect, for example, that none of their methods will be called
 after driver_unregister() returns.  It doesn't matter if some other
 thread still holds a reference to the driver structure; that reference
 mustn't be used for accessing the driver code after unregistration.  
 get_driver() does not do any checking for this.
 
 People may have been misled by the kerneldoc into thinking that the
 references obtained by get_driver() do somehow pin the driver structure
 in memory.  This simply isn't true; all it pins is the associated
 private structure.  Code that needs to pin a driver must do it some
 other way (probably by calling try_module_get()).
 
 In short, these routines don't do anything useful and they can actively 
 mislead people.  Removing them won't introduce any bugs that aren't 
 already present.  There is no reason to keep them.

Very nice work, all now applied, thanks for doing this.

greg k-h
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-media in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html