Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 16 Jan 2003 01:49:32 -0300 | From | Werner Almesberger <> | Subject | Re: [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/
| |