[lkml]   [2003]   [Feb]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH/RFC] New module refcounting for net_proto_family
In message <> you write:
> >There has been talk of this, but OTOH, the admin has explicitly gone
> >out of their way to remove this module. They really don't want anyone
> >new using it. Presumably at this very moment they are killing off all
> >the processes they can find with such a socket.
> The thing is that once those processes are killed sockets will be
> destroyed and release the module anyway. i.e. There is no reason to
> sort of artificially force accept() to fail. Everything will be cleaned
> up once the process is gone.

Yes, but in practical terms it's probably going to fork a child with
that socket.

> >I think it can be argued both ways, honestly.
> Yep. And I'd argue in for of module_get() :)

My only real insistence in this is that such an interface be called
__try_module_get(), because the "__" warn people that it's a "you'd
better know *exactly* what you are doing", even though the "try" is a
bit of a misnomer.

"module_get" sounds like a "simpler" try_module_get()...
Anyone who quotes me in their sig is an idiot. -- Rusty Russell.
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:0.052 / U:1.564 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site