lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Sep]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Question about pseudo filesystems
Hi,

On Tue, 10 Sep 2002, Daniel Phillips wrote:

> There's a simple solution though: examine the module->count under the same
> spinlock as try_inc_mod_count, which is what sys_delete_module does. We just
> encapsulate that check in a handy wrapper and define it as part of the
> try_inc_mod_count interface. At this point the thing is generalized to the
> point where the module count isn't used at all by module.c, so the same
> interface will also accomodate the still-under-construction magic wait for
> quiescent state(), needed for modules that don't fit the mod_count model.

I implemented something like this some time ago. If module->count isn't
used by module.c anymore, why should it be in the module structure?
Consequently I removed it from the module struct (what breaks of course
unloading of all modules, so I'll probably reintroduce it with big a
warning). If the count isn't in the module structure, the locking will
become quite simpler. More info is here
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=102754132716703&w=2

bye, Roman

-
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 13:28    [W:0.176 / U:2.176 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site