I realized that in patch for ACPI battery I created perfect example of
self-destructing sysfs attributes. Basically, on every access to battery
properties we check battery status. If ACPI reports battery not present, we
remove sysfs power_supply object. I.e.
-> user space queries e.g. .../PNP0C0A:00/power_supply/BAT1/energy_now
-> call acpi_battery_update
-> battery gone
-> call power_supply_unregister(.../PNP0C0A:00/power_supply)
I remember discussion about this but am not sure what final outcome is. So
questions
- is it legal in this form?
- what is the proper way to manage such situation?
- if I move (de-)registering of power_supply out of acpi_battery_update, is
extra locking (refcounting) required to keep attributes alive or sysfs will
ensure this?
TIA
-andrey
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
- Prev by Date: [patch 13/28] Add cmpxchg_local, cmpxchg64 and cmpxchg64_local to ia64
- Next by Date: checkpatch bug: space between left parenthesis and asterisk
- Previous by thread: [patch 00/28] cmpxchg_local standardization across architectures
- Next by thread: checkpatch bug: space between left parenthesis and asterisk
- Index(es):
 |