On Fri, 2007-03-30 at 12:32 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
quoted text
> On Fri, Mar 30, 2007 at 07:46:19PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > 
> > * Greg KH <gregkh@suse.de> wrote:
> > 
> > > >  BUG: at drivers/base/driver.c:187 driver_unregister()
> > > >   [<c0105ff9>] show_trace_log_lvl+0x19/0x2e
> > > >   [<c01063e2>] show_trace+0x12/0x14
> > > >   [<c01063f8>] dump_stack+0x14/0x16
> > > >   [<c063f7e6>] driver_unregister+0x3d/0x43
> > > >   [<c0488048>] pci_unregister_driver+0x10/0x5f
> > > >   [<c1b5f7c7>] slgt_init+0x9b/0x1ca
> > > >   [<c1b31a2d>] init+0x15d/0x2bd
> > > >   [<c0105bc3>] kernel_thread_helper+0x7/0x10
> > 
> > > Yes, we should allow the ability to call unregister_driver from within 
> > > the module_init function.
> > > 
> > > But I don't understand what is causing you to see this problem.  Who 
> > > is holding the reference on the struct device at this point in time?  
> > > Is it the fact that userspace has some files open and it hasn't 
> > > released them yet?
> > 
> > at least in the slgt_init() case the affected codepath is trivial:
> > 
> >         if ((rc = pci_register_driver(&pci_driver)) < 0) {
> >                 printk("%s pci_register_driver error=%d\n", driver_name, rc);
> >                 return rc;
> >         }
> >         pci_registered = 1;
> > 
> >         if (!slgt_device_list) {
> >                 printk("%s no devices found\n",driver_name);
> >                 pci_unregister_driver(&pci_driver);
> >                 return -ENODEV;
> > 
> > slgt_device_list is NULL because no matching PCI ID is on my system (i 
> > dont have this hardware), so the ->probe() function did not get called 
> > at all.
> 
> Sorry, no, I realize how this could happen in the driver, I just don't
> see what in the driver core would be keeping this driver from having
> it's release function called at the unregister() time.
> 
> Something has grabbed a reference to the driver...
> 
> Oh wait, is this code a module or built into the kernel?
> 
> If it's built in, there's still a reference counting bug in the
> module/driver hookup logic as we really don't have a "module" yet we are
> still thinking we do as we represent it in /sys/module and create the
> linkages.
> 
> I created some horrible patches to try to track this down, as it was
> reported on lkml (look for "Subject: kref refcounting breakage in mainline" )
> but never got it working correctly.
> 
> I bet if you build that code as a module, it will work just fine, can
> you try it?
> 
> Kay, did you ever get a chance to look into this reference counting
> issue?

Does the attached work for you?

Thanks,
Kay