[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:0.107 / U:2.900 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site