[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
At 04:30 PM 2/20/2003, Rusty Russell wrote:
>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.
But it will also be killed.

>> >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.
Yeah, I think 'try' is definitely be a misnomer in this case.
How about something like this ?

static inline void __module_get(struct module *mod)
if (!module_refcount(mod))

We will be able to compile the kernel with CONFIG_MODULE_DETECT_API_VIOLATION
and easily find all modules that call __module_get() without holding a reference.

Comments ?


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:0.094 / U:0.108 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site