linux.git/net/can/proc.c, branch v2.6.32 Linux kernel source tree can: switch to seq_file 2009-08-29T07:19:38+00:00 Alexey Dobriyan adobriyan@gmail.com 2009-08-28T09:57:21+00:00 ea00b8e2223170a842bee06e0f27754ccdf2a217 create_proc_read_entry() is going to be removed soon. Signed-off-by: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net> 
create_proc_read_entry() is going to be removed soon.

Signed-off-by: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
proc 2/2: remove struct proc_dir_entry::owner 2009-03-30T21:14:44+00:00 Alexey Dobriyan adobriyan@gmail.com 2009-03-25T19:48:06+00:00 99b76233803beab302123d243eea9e41149804f3 Setting ->owner as done currently (pde->owner = THIS_MODULE) is racy as correctly noted at bug #12454. Someone can lookup entry with NULL ->owner, thus not pinning enything, and release it later resulting in module refcount underflow. We can keep ->owner and supply it at registration time like ->proc_fops and ->data. But this leaves ->owner as easy-manipulative field (just one C assignment) and somebody will forget to unpin previous/pin current module when switching ->owner. ->proc_fops is declared as "const" which should give some thoughts. ->read_proc/->write_proc were just fixed to not require ->owner for protection. rmmod'ed directories will be empty and return "." and ".." -- no harm. And directories with tricky enough readdir and lookup shouldn't be modular. We definitely don't want such modular code. Removing ->owner will also make PDE smaller. So, let's nuke it. Kudos to Jeff Layton for reminding about this, let's say, oversight. http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12454 Signed-off-by: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com> 
Setting ->owner as done currently (pde->owner = THIS_MODULE) is racy
as correctly noted at bug #12454. Someone can lookup entry with NULL
->owner, thus not pinning enything, and release it later resulting
in module refcount underflow.

We can keep ->owner and supply it at registration time like ->proc_fops
and ->data.

But this leaves ->owner as easy-manipulative field (just one C assignment)
and somebody will forget to unpin previous/pin current module when
switching ->owner. ->proc_fops is declared as "const" which should give
some thoughts.

->read_proc/->write_proc were just fixed to not require ->owner for
protection.

rmmod'ed directories will be empty and return "." and ".." -- no harm.
And directories with tricky enough readdir and lookup shouldn't be modular.
We definitely don't want such modular code.

Removing ->owner will also make PDE smaller.

So, let's nuke it.

Kudos to Jeff Layton for reminding about this, let's say, oversight.

http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12454

Signed-off-by: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>
[CAN]: Add PF_CAN core module 2008-01-28T22:54:10+00:00 Oliver Hartkopp oliver.hartkopp@volkswagen.de 2007-11-16T23:52:17+00:00 0d66548a10cbbe0ef256852d63d30603f0f73f9b This patch adds the CAN core functionality but no protocols or drivers. No protocol implementations are included here. They come as separate patches. Protocol numbers are already in include/linux/can.h. Signed-off-by: Oliver Hartkopp <oliver.hartkopp@volkswagen.de> Signed-off-by: Urs Thuermann <urs.thuermann@volkswagen.de> Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net> 
This patch adds the CAN core functionality but no protocols or drivers.
No protocol implementations are included here.  They come as separate
patches.  Protocol numbers are already in include/linux/can.h.

Signed-off-by: Oliver Hartkopp <oliver.hartkopp@volkswagen.de>
Signed-off-by: Urs Thuermann <urs.thuermann@volkswagen.de>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>