[lkml]   [2002]   [Jul]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [OKS] Module removal
    Jamie Lokier wrote:
    > The more I think about it, the more I think the `owner' thing in
    > file_operations et al. is the right thing in all cases,

    What troubles me most in this discussion is that nobody seems to
    think of how these issues affect non-modules.

    Entry-after-removal is an anomaly in the subsystem making that call.
    Fixing it for modules is fine as long as only modules will ever
    un-register, but what do you do if non-module code ever wants to
    un-register too ? (E.g. think hot-plugging or software devices.)

    Invent some pseudo-module framework for it ? Require all code using
    that subsystem to be a module ? What happens if there are multiple
    registrations per chunk of code ?

    Besides, a common pattern for those "hold this down, kick that, then
    slowly count to ten, and now it's safe to release" solutions seems
    to be that it takes roughly ten times as long to find the race
    condition buried deep within them, than it took for the respective

    I'm not sure the incremental band aid approach works in this case.

    I'm sorry that I don't have to offer anything more constructive at
    the moment, but I first want to build some testing framework. One
    oops says more than ten pages of analysis explaining a race
    condition :-)

    - Werner

    / Werner Almesberger, Buenos Aires, Argentina /
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:27    [W:0.021 / U:11.820 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site