lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2000]   [Nov]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Module open() problems, Linux 2.4.0
In article <Pine.LNX.3.95.1001109154744.16836A-100000@chaos.analogic.com> you wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Nov 2000, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>> There is NO guarantee that module use count == device open count. Never
>> has been, AFAIK. It just happens to work out that way on a lot of
>> pre-2.4 code.
>>
>> The kernel is free to bump the module reference count up and down as it
>> pleases. For example, if a driver creates a kernel thread, that will
>> increase its module usage count by one, for the duration of the kernel
>> thread's lifetime.
>>
>> The only rule is that you cannot unload a module until its use count it
>> zero.
>>
>> Jeff
>>

> I suppose. Look at what you just stated! This means that a reported
> value is now worthless.

Correct. And it was always worthless.

> To restate, somebody decided that we didn't need this reported value
> anymore. Therefore, it is okay to make it worthless.

It was always wothless besides == 0 means: you can unload me now.

> I don't agree. The De-facto standard has been that the module usage
> count is equal to the open count. This became the standard because
> of a long established history.

It's the same de-facto standard as bogo-mips ~= CPU MHz. It was so,
but it was neither intended nor documented so.

> This is one of the tools we use to verify that an entire system
> is functioning properly.

It was the wrong tool.

Christoph

--
Always remember that you are unique. Just like everyone else.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:45    [W:0.093 / U:3.268 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site