Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 10 Sep 2002 12:17:29 +0200 (CEST) | From | Roman Zippel <> | Subject | Re: Question about pseudo filesystems |
| |
Hi,
On Tue, 10 Sep 2002, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> There's a simple solution though: examine the module->count under the same > spinlock as try_inc_mod_count, which is what sys_delete_module does. We just > encapsulate that check in a handy wrapper and define it as part of the > try_inc_mod_count interface. At this point the thing is generalized to the > point where the module count isn't used at all by module.c, so the same > interface will also accomodate the still-under-construction magic wait for > quiescent state(), needed for modules that don't fit the mod_count model.
I implemented something like this some time ago. If module->count isn't used by module.c anymore, why should it be in the module structure? Consequently I removed it from the module struct (what breaks of course unloading of all modules, so I'll probably reintroduce it with big a warning). If the count isn't in the module structure, the locking will become quite simpler. More info is here http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=102754132716703&w=2
bye, Roman
- 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/
| |