Messages in this thread |  | | From | Daniel Phillips <> | Subject | Re: [RFC] Raceless module interface | Date | Fri, 13 Sep 2002 19:12:13 +0200 |
| |
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()?
Yuppers:
static inline void kfree_test(void *object) { if (object) kfree(object); }
#define kfree_sloppy kfree_test
s/kfree/kfree_sloppy/g
(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.
-- 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/
|  |