lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Jan]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC] Migrating net/sched to new module interface
David S. Miller wrote:
> I totally agree with Rusty. If you don't understand this fundamental
> difference between module unloading vs. arbitrary kernel objects
> going away,

I think I understand that part. What I'm saying is that any
interface that will still call you after deregistration will
also cause problems with normal data accesses, even if no
modules are involved.

So, if interfaces with this kind of bug are fixed, all of a
sudden the second (1) synchronization mechanism for module
unloads - returning from the cleanup function (2) - becomes
a viable alternative to try_module_get.

(1) The first mechanism being the use count.
(2) Or, in the case of initialization failure, returning
from the init function.

And that's what I think we should build upon. Rusty doesn't
see things this way, and I'd like to find out where exactly
we disagree.

- Werner

--
_________________________________________________________________________
/ Werner Almesberger, Buenos Aires, Argentina wa@almesberger.net /
/_http://www.almesberger.net/____________________________________________/
-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:32    [W:0.091 / U:1.064 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site