Christian König <ckoenig.leichtzumerken@gmail.com> writes:

> Am 16.04.19 um 02:35 schrieb Karol Herbst:
>> Kobjects are supposed to be dynamically allocated, but with recent changes
>> this rule was violated. Reverting those commits fixes crashes when a drm
>> driver using TTM gets loaded again.
>>
>> The object in question is "ttm_mem_glob" declared inside
>> "include/drm/ttm/ttm_memory.h" and instatiated inside
>> "drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_memory.c".
>>
>> from "Documentation/kobject.txt":
>> "Because kobjects are dynamic, they must not be declared statically or on
>> the stack, but instead, always allocated dynamically.  Future versions of
>> the kernel will contain a run-time check for kobjects that are created
>> statically and will warn the developer of this improper usage."
>>
>> Unloading ttm before reloading the driver workarounds that crash, because
>> the memory backing the kobject member "kobj" is cleaned up. The kobject_del
>> and kobject_put function never free or clean up the kobject object leaving
>> it in an undefined state.
>>
>> I reverted a few more commits to make it less painful for me to rever this
>> rather big change.
>
> Well, NAK. By reverting those change you also re-introduced the problems 
> we originally fixed with those patches.
>
> Please work on a proper fix instead,

That's not Karol's responsibility, that's yours as the author.  I would
like to remind about Linux's regressions policy, quoting from
Documentation/process/4.Coding.rst:

"One final hazard worth mentioning is this: it can be tempting to make a
change (which may bring big improvements) which causes something to break
for existing users.  This kind of change is called a "regression," and
regressions have become most unwelcome in the mainline kernel.  With few
exceptions, changes which cause regressions will be backed out if the
regression cannot be fixed in a timely manner.  Far better to avoid the
regression in the first place.

It is often argued that a regression can be justified if it causes things
to work for more people than it creates problems for.  Why not make a
change if it brings new functionality to ten systems for each one it
breaks?  The best answer to this question was expressed by Linus in July,
2007:

::

	So we don't fix bugs by introducing new problems.  That way lies
	madness, and nobody ever knows if you actually make any real
	progress at all. Is it two steps forwards, one step back, or one
	step forward and two steps back?"