lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Feb]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH/RFC] New module refcounting for net_proto_family
    Date
    In message <5.1.0.14.2.20030220092216.0d3fefd0@mail1.qualcomm.com> you write:
    > >There has been talk of this, but OTOH, the admin has explicitly gone
    > >out of their way to remove this module. They really don't want anyone
    > >new using it. Presumably at this very moment they are killing off all
    > >the processes they can find with such a socket.
    > The thing is that once those processes are killed sockets will be
    > destroyed and release the module anyway. i.e. There is no reason to
    > sort of artificially force accept() to fail. Everything will be cleaned
    > up once the process is gone.

    Yes, but in practical terms it's probably going to fork a child with
    that socket.

    > >I think it can be argued both ways, honestly.
    > Yep. And I'd argue in for of module_get() :)

    My only real insistence in this is that such an interface be called
    __try_module_get(), because the "__" warn people that it's a "you'd
    better know *exactly* what you are doing", even though the "try" is a
    bit of a misnomer.

    "module_get" sounds like a "simpler" try_module_get()...
    Rusty.
    --
    Anyone who quotes me in their sig is an idiot. -- Rusty Russell.
    -
    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 13:33    [W:5.311 / U:0.016 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site