On Thu, Feb 10, 2005 at 04:37:03PM -0500, Adam Belay wrote: > On Thu, 2005-02-10 at 18:45 +0000, Russell King wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 10, 2005 at 12:18:37PM -0500, Adam Belay wrote: > > > > I think the issue that Al raises about drivers grabbing devices, and > > > > then trying to unbind them might be a real problem. > > > > > > I agree. Do you think registering every in-kernel driver before probing > > > hardware would solve this problem? > > > > In which case, consider whether we should be tainting the kernel if > > someone loads a device driver, it binds to a device, and then they > > unload that driver. > > > > It's precisely the same situation, and precisely the same mechanics > > as what I've suggested should be going on here. If one scenario is > > inherently buggy, so is the other. > > > > I think it would depend on whether the user makes the device busy before > the driver is unloaded. Different device classes may have different > requirements for when and how a device can be removed. Are there other > issues as well? Maybe there are ways to improve driver start and stop > mechanics.
We never fail a device unbind from a driver, so this isn't as big a deal as I originally thought. Yes, userspace can get messy, but as userspace was the one that loaded the new driver to bind, it's acceptable. So, care to resubmit your patch? thanks, greg k-h - 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/
