lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Jul]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    SubjectRe: [RFC] new module format
    Date
    On Tuesday 16 July 2002 15:04, Roman Zippel wrote:
    > 1. Properly fixing module races: I'm playing with a init/start/stop/exit
    > model, this has the advantage that we can stop anyone from reusing a
    > module and we only have to wait for remaining users to go away until we
    > can safely unload the module.

    I'm satisfied that, for filesystems at least, all the module races can be
    solved without adding start/stop, and I will present code in due course.
    However, Rusty tells me there are harder cases than filesystems. At this
    point I'm waiting for a specific example.

    For filesystems, we rely on the filesystem code itself to know when all users
    have gone away. If somebody is still executing in a filesystem module after
    all umounts are done, it's a horrible nasty bug. We might still want to play
    games with checking execution addresses of processes to see if anybody is
    still in a module, but that would just be for debug; sys_delete_module can
    rely on the filesystem's opinion about whether a module is quiescent or not.

    Somebody please give me an example of why this same strategy will not
    work for all types of modular code.

    --
    Daniel
    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:22    [W:0.024 / U:0.104 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site