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:0.117 / U:0.060 seconds]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site