[lkml]   [2003]   [Feb]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [RFC] Is an alternative module interface needed/possible?
    Rusty Russell wrote:
    > Of course, if you wanted to remove the entry at any other time
    > (eg. hotplug), this doesn't help you one damn bit (which is kind of
    > your point).

    Yep, try_module_get solves the general synchronization problem for
    the special but interesting case of modules, but not for the general

    > This is what network devices do, and what the sockopt registration
    > code does, too, so this is already in the kernel, too. It's not
    > great, but it becomes a noop for the module deregistration stuff.

    Yes, I think just sleeping isn't so bad at all. First of all,
    we already have the module use count as a kind of "don't unload
    now" advice (not sure if you plan to phase out MOD_INC_USE_COUNT ?),
    and second, it's not exactly without precedent anyway. E.g. umount
    will have little qualms of letting you sleep "forever". (And,
    naturally, every once in a while, people hate it for this :-)

    Anyway, I'll write more about this tomorrow. For tonight, I
    have my advanced insanity 101 to finish, topic "ptracing
    more than one UML/TT at the same time".

    - 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 13:33    [W:0.025 / U:53.580 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site