On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 10:27:41AM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 01:02:34PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > > I'll repeat my question: what worse can happen than returning -EPIPE? I > > though the whole rw lock scheme was introduced just for this purpose. > > I thought I explained this, if device_del is moved after ops = null > then if sysfs looses the race it will oops the kernel. device_del hard > fences sysfs.
Sorry, I missed that comment somehow. Looking at the code it is like that. I think that they should be fenced then for the sake of consistency. I do not see why sysfs code is privileged not to do fencing while other peers have to do it. /Jarkko ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ tpmdd-devel mailing list tpmdd-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tpmdd-devel
