On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 10:22:45AM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > 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.
The last point is certainly legit. I think it even might deserve a comment of its own in tpm_del_char_device. I think I have a good idea now what to do. Hold on for RFC patch. > Jason /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
