On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 02:23:57PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > 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.
Certainly the locking could be changed, but it would be nice to have a reason other than aesthetics. sysfs is not unique, we also do not grab the rwlock lock during any commands executed as part of probe. There are basically two locking regimes - stuff that is proven to by synchronous with probe/remove (sysfs, probe cmds) and everything else (kapi, cdev) Further, the current sysfs implementation is nice and sane: the file accesses cannot fail with ENODEV. That is a useful concrete property and I don't think we should change it without a good reason. Jason ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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
