lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Jun]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/2] module: fix bne2 "gave up waiting for init of module libcrc32c"
Date
On Tue, 1 Jun 2010 01:10:36 pm Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Tue, 1 Jun 2010, Rusty Russell wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 1 Jun 2010 05:45:37 am Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > >
> > > basically, we should do the whole module dependency list regardless
> > > of whether we can unload modules or not
> >
> > Why?
>
> Because the current non-CONFIG_MODULE_UNLOAD code is currently broken, and
> it was broken exactly because the code had two totally different paths and
> totally different logic. And one part simply missed the case.
>
> We'd be much better off having as much of the logic shared as possible.
> No?
>
> Your 2/2 actually fixed that, because it moved the broken
> wait_event_interruptible_timeout() out of the (non-shared) use_module()
> into the (shared) resolve_symbol_wait(). But even that seemed to be almost
> accidental, and seemed to be more about the fact that now the locking
> rules required it (if you wanted to wait without holding the lock), rather
> than anything else.

!CONFIG_MODULE_UNLOAD still does the old "fail don't wait" behavior.

So yes, moving the waiting into common code was a win for consistency,
either with your patch or mine.

> So I'd suggest we should just track those module dependencies, and share
> more of the code and the logic. Because it looks to me like not sharing it
> continually results in bugs.
>
> No?

I wonder if we should just get rid of !CONFIG_UNLOAD then? I have a soft spot
for it because it keeps us honest and shows how much shit is there simply for
our poor man's pagable kernel.

Let me compile up a kernel with and without and see what it's really doing
to us...

Thanks,
Rusty.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-06-01 07:23    [W:0.237 / U:0.644 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site