Messages in this thread |  | | From | "Petr Vandrovec" <> | Date | Wed, 15 Jan 2003 15:21:22 +0100 | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Proposed module init race fix. |
| |
On 15 Jan 03 at 20:06, Rusty Russell wrote: > In message <200301150846.AAA01104@adam.yggdrasil.com> you write: > > On 2003-01-15, Rusty Russell wrote: > > >It's possible to start using a module, and then have it fail > > >initialization. In 2.4, this resulted in random behaviour. One > > >solution to this is to make all interfaces two-stage: reserve > > >everything you need (which might fail), the activate them. This > > >means changing about 1600 modules, and deprecating every interface > > >they use. > > > > Could you explain this "random behavior" of 2.4 a bit more? > > As far as I know, if a module's init function fails, it must > > unregister everything that it has registered up to that point. > > And if someone's using it, the module gets unloaded underneath them.
No. Unregister will go to sleep until it is safe to unregister driver. See unregister_netdevice for perfect example, but I'm sure that there are other unregister functions which make sure that after unregister it is OK to destroy everything. Best regards, Petr Vandrovec vandrove@vc.cvut.cz
- 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/
|  |