[lkml]   [2003]   [Feb]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC] Is an alternative module interface needed/possible?
Rusty Russell wrote:
> Of course, if you wanted to remove the entry at any other time
> (eg. hotplug), this doesn't help you one damn bit (which is kind of
> your point).

Yep, try_module_get solves the general synchronization problem for
the special but interesting case of modules, but not for the general

> This is what network devices do, and what the sockopt registration
> code does, too, so this is already in the kernel, too. It's not
> great, but it becomes a noop for the module deregistration stuff.

Yes, I think just sleeping isn't so bad at all. First of all,
we already have the module use count as a kind of "don't unload
now" advice (not sure if you plan to phase out MOD_INC_USE_COUNT ?),
and second, it's not exactly without precedent anyway. E.g. umount
will have little qualms of letting you sleep "forever". (And,
naturally, every once in a while, people hate it for this :-)

Anyway, I'll write more about this tomorrow. For tonight, I
have my advanced insanity 101 to finish, topic "ptracing
more than one UML/TT at the same time".

- Werner

/ Werner Almesberger, Buenos Aires, Argentina /
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 13:33    [W:0.166 / U:5.996 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site