From: Werner Almesberger <wa@almesberger.net>
To: "David S. Miller" <davem@redhat.com>
Cc: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>,
"Alexey N. Kuznetsov" <kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru>,
Roman Zippel <zippel@linux-m68k.org>,
kronos@kronoz.cjb.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] Migrating net/sched to new module interface
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 01:49:32 -0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20030116014932.G1521@almesberger.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1042691130.13364.1.camel@rth.ninka.net>; from davem@redhat.com on Wed, Jan 15, 2003 at 08:25:30PM -0800
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/____________________________________________/
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-01-16 4:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 73+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-01-02 22:50 [RFC] Migrating net/sched to new module interface Kronos
2003-01-03 5:10 ` Rusty Russell
2003-01-03 8:37 ` David S. Miller
2003-01-04 6:09 ` Rusty Russell
2003-01-04 16:21 ` Kronos
2003-01-13 22:32 ` kuznet
2003-01-13 23:23 ` Max Krasnyansky
2003-01-14 17:49 ` Kronos
2003-01-15 0:21 ` Roman Zippel
2003-01-15 1:19 ` kuznet
2003-01-15 7:31 ` Werner Almesberger
2003-01-15 8:16 ` Rusty Russell
2003-01-15 9:33 ` Werner Almesberger
2003-01-16 1:12 ` Rusty Russell
2003-01-16 2:42 ` Werner Almesberger
2003-01-16 3:31 ` Rusty Russell
2003-01-16 4:20 ` Werner Almesberger
2003-01-16 4:25 ` David S. Miller
2003-01-16 4:49 ` Werner Almesberger [this message]
2003-01-16 16:05 ` Roman Zippel
2003-01-16 18:15 ` Roman Zippel
2003-01-16 18:58 ` Werner Almesberger
2003-01-16 23:53 ` Roman Zippel
2003-01-17 1:04 ` Greg KH
2003-01-17 2:27 ` Rusty Russell
2003-01-17 21:40 ` Roman Zippel
2003-02-13 23:16 ` Werner Almesberger
2003-02-14 1:57 ` Rusty Russell
2003-02-14 3:44 ` Werner Almesberger
2003-02-14 11:16 ` Roman Zippel
2003-02-14 12:04 ` Rusty Russell
2003-02-14 12:49 ` Roman Zippel
2003-02-17 1:59 ` Rusty Russell
2003-02-17 10:53 ` Roman Zippel
2003-02-17 23:31 ` Rusty Russell
2003-02-18 12:26 ` Roman Zippel
2003-02-14 13:21 ` Roman Zippel
2003-02-14 13:53 ` Werner Almesberger
2003-02-14 14:24 ` Roman Zippel
2003-02-14 18:30 ` Werner Almesberger
2003-02-14 20:09 ` Roman Zippel
2003-02-15 0:12 ` Werner Almesberger
2003-02-15 0:51 ` Roman Zippel
2003-02-15 2:28 ` Werner Almesberger
2003-02-15 23:20 ` Roman Zippel
2003-02-17 17:04 ` Werner Almesberger
2003-02-17 23:09 ` [RFC] Is an alternative module interface needed/possible? Roman Zippel
2003-02-18 1:18 ` Werner Almesberger
2003-02-18 4:54 ` Rusty Russell
2003-02-18 7:20 ` Werner Almesberger
2003-02-18 12:06 ` Roman Zippel
2003-02-18 14:12 ` Werner Almesberger
2003-02-18 12:45 ` Thomas Molina
2003-02-18 17:22 ` Werner Almesberger
2003-02-19 3:30 ` Rusty Russell
2003-02-19 4:11 ` Werner Almesberger
2003-02-19 23:38 ` Rusty Russell
2003-02-20 9:46 ` Roman Zippel
2003-02-20 0:40 ` Roman Zippel
2003-02-20 2:17 ` Werner Almesberger
2003-02-23 16:02 ` Roman Zippel
2003-02-26 23:26 ` Werner Almesberger
2003-02-27 12:34 ` Roman Zippel
2003-02-27 13:20 ` Werner Almesberger
2003-02-27 14:33 ` Roman Zippel
2003-02-23 23:34 ` Kevin O'Connor
2003-02-24 12:14 ` Roman Zippel
2003-02-18 12:35 ` Roman Zippel
2003-02-18 14:14 ` Werner Almesberger
2003-02-19 1:48 ` Roman Zippel
2003-02-19 2:27 ` Werner Almesberger
2003-01-16 13:44 ` [RFC] Migrating net/sched to new module interface Roman Zippel
2003-01-15 17:04 ` Roman Zippel
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20030116014932.G1521@almesberger.net \
--to=wa@almesberger.net \
--cc=davem@redhat.com \
--cc=kronos@kronoz.cjb.net \
--cc=kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rusty@rustcorp.com.au \
--cc=zippel@linux-m68k.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).