On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 01:08:29AM +0400, Anton Vorontsov wrote: > On Mon, Apr 16, 2007 at 09:24:21PM +0100, Russell King wrote: > > Utterly unsafe. What happens if some other module gets loaded which > > does this, and then this module is unloaded followed by the other > > module. Result: Oops. > > Right. And loading two modules which changing apm_get_power_status > is a race already. Thus, APM interface needs a mutex. > > Or pda_power should be marked "bool" in Kconfig, as it is done > in arch/arm/common/sharpsl_pm.c. Sharpsl_pm is safe only because it > can't be a module. > > Personally I'd keep things as is for now (i.e. I'd want tristate for > PDA_POWER, not bool). Later APM API can be fixed.
Experience shows "Later" more often than not means "never", inspite of what is said at the time the word is used... -- Russell King Linux kernel 2.6 ARM Linux - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/ maintainer of: - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
