Messages in this thread | | | From | Rusty Russell <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH/RFC] New module refcounting for net_proto_family | Date | Fri, 21 Feb 2003 11:30:25 +1100 |
| |
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/
| |