lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Jun]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH][ATM] use rtnl_{lock,unlock} during device operations (take 2)
Hi,

On Mon, 9 Jun 2003, David S. Miller wrote:

> You also have to wait for the already running
> operations to finish, before you can allow the module to unload.
>
> These things run under dev_base_lock, so either they find the device
> or they don't, and since they hold a spinlock they can't preempt.

dev_base_lock mostly protects the device list, but it doesn't protect the
call of get_stats.
Anyway, I'm really not against these changes. Actually it's quite close to
what I already proposed months ago. The basic idea was always to replace
the global module lock with a device specific lock (which is needed for
dynamic device management anyway) and to let the driver provide a module
use count. This is not that different and it was rejected from Rusty and
"really unfairly drove Rusty up a wall".
I look forward to progress in this area and maybe then it's easier to
discuss how this can be generalized and applied to other parts of the
kernel and maybe we can also compare it to that "stuff" I proposed which
"stunk like pure shit". ;-)

bye, Roman

-
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 13:36    [W:0.058 / U:16.928 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site