Messages in this thread | | | From | Daniel Phillips <> | Subject | Re: [RFC] new module format | Date | Thu, 18 Jul 2002 14:13:35 +0200 |
| |
On Thursday 18 July 2002 14:02, Roman Zippel wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, 18 Jul 2002, Daniel Phillips wrote: > > > To add a new user, the active bit has to be set, as shown in this skeleton, > > which is pretty much the existing try_inc_mod_count scheme: > > > > spin_lock(&some_spinlock); > > if (<mod_active_bit>) > > <inc_mod_user_count> > > spin_unlock(&some_spinlock); > > > > if <users>, do the mount > > > > In other words, the module has some state, the transitions of which are > > protected by a spinlock. > > This means you still need another lock to protect the data structures and > you still have module pointers everywhere.
A module pointer per filesystem does not count as 'everywhere'.
> I want to get rid of that > "same_spinlock" (aka unload_lock), because it's not needed. > I suggest we continue this discussion when I post the new patches in a few > days, then it should become more clear.
Sure.
-- Daniel - 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/
| |