![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
In message <Pine.LNX.4.44.0306161043020.2079-100000@notebook.home.mdiehl.de> you write: > On Mon, 16 Jun 2003, Rusty Russell wrote: > > It would be syncronous:> You mean your cleanup_thread would block for completion of the keventd > stuff? Ok, this would work. But then, when calling cleanup_thread, f.e. we > must not hold any semaphore which might be acquired by _any_ other work > scheduled for keventd or we might end in deadlock (like the rtnl+hotplug > issue we had seen recently). I think we're talking across each other: take a look at the existing kernel/kmod.c __call_usermodehelper to see how we wait at the moment. > > Also, this replaces complete_and_exit: the thread can just exit. This > > simplifies things for the users, too...> > Personally I do like the complete_and_exit thing as a simple and clear > finalisation point. Not as clean as "wait until the thread has exited", surely! Cheers, 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 13:36 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||