[lkml]   [2002]   [Sep]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [RFC] Raceless module interface
    On Friday 13 September 2002 18:39, Thunder from the hill wrote:
    > Hi,
    > 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!

    That's what happens now. We can certainly improve the error message,
    and actually, that just falls out, from properly adding an error
    return code to ->cleanup_module()

    > 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()?


    static inline void kfree_test(void *object)
    if (object)

    #define kfree_sloppy kfree_test


    (But see "different discussion" above.)

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

    Um. You know it's NULL and you freed it anyway?

    (But see "different discussion" above.)

    > > 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.

    Yes, or two, my favorite.

    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:0.045 / U:14.656 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site