Messages in this thread | | | From | Keith Owens <> | Subject | Re: OOPS with slab cache | Date | Tue, 11 Jan 2000 19:28:45 +1100 |
| |
On Mon, 10 Jan 2000 16:28:23 -0700 (MST), Andreas Dilger <adilger@home.com> wrote: >Hello all, >Having looked into this slab cache/module problem some more (I read the >comments that a slab cache should NOT be destroyed at all), it still >leaves the problem of how to get at the existing cache after a module is >unloaded and reloaded, if it doesn't keep any memory pointer in-kernel. >Having "static cache_p" in the module is no good if the module itself >is unloaded, and patching the kernel for this filesystem module just to >hold a static pointer is not desirable.
Would a patch to add persistent variables for modules be accepted into the kernel? Modules define variables like this
static __persistent cache * cache_p;
__persistent in a module stores the data in a separate ELF section, when the code is builtin __persistent is a no-op. modutils and kernel/modules allocate and initialize storage for __persistent the first time the module is loaded. Unloading a module does not remove the __persistent data, reloading the module will reuse but not initialize the assigned storage.
Easy enough to code but it is not worth doing unless the patch stands a chance of being accepted into the kernel. So would this feature be worthwhile?
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |