[lkml]   [2002]   [Sep]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC] Raceless module interface

On Fri, 13 Sep 2002, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> That's debatable. Arguably, a failed ->module_cleanup() should be
> retried on every rmmod -a, but expecting module.c to just keep
> retrying mindlessly on its own sounds too much like a busy wait.

Hmmm. You might as well give it back to the user.

rmmod: remove failed: do it again!

So the cleanup code could as well just do it on its own.

> > Why is that sloppy? E.g. kfree() happily accepts NULL pointers as well.
> That is sloppy. Different discussion.

What should kfree do in your opinion? BUG()?

doodle.c:12: attempted to free NULL pointer, as you know it already is.

> I take it that the points you didn't reply to are points that you
> agree with? (The main point being, that we both advocate a simple,
> two-method interface for module load/unload.)

You could even do it using three methods.

--./../...-/. -.--/---/..-/.-./..././.-../..-. .---/..-/.../- .-
--/../-./..-/-/./--..-- ../.----./.-../.-.. --./../...-/. -.--/---/..-
.- -/---/--/---/.-./.-./---/.--/.-.-.-

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:28    [W:0.151 / U:4.516 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site