On Sun, Jan 06, 2008 at 11:54:43AM +0900, Tejun Heo wrote:
> That means sysfs_remove_dir() is called on parent while other operations
> are in progress on children, right? sysfs has never allowed such things
> && AFAIK no one does that. It's somewhat implied in the interface (such
> as recursive removing) but I fully agree it's problematic. Things like
> these are why I think we need to unify/simplify locking as I wrote
> previously.
All it takes is kobject_rename() or kobject_move() called asynchronously
wrt removal... I don't see an explicit ban for that.
FWIW, what happens here *is* fishy, but I don't see an outright ban on
that in documentation - rfcomm_tty_open() does
device_move(dev->tty_dev, rfcomm_get_device(dev));
when we get openers, rfcomm_tty_close() does
device_move(dev->tty_dev, NULL);
when the number of openers hits zero. Can happen repeatedly.
Note that device_move() with new parent being NULL is explicitly allowed
and handled, so...
--
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/
