Re: [RFC] Raceless module interface

[David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au>]

On Fri, Sep 13, 2002 at 11:30:47AM +1000, Paul 'Rusty' Russell wrote:
> In message <Pine.LNX.4.44.0209121520300.28515-100000@serv> you write:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > On Thu, 12 Sep 2002, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > 
> > > Nope, that's one of the two problems.  Read my previous post: the
> > > other is partial initialization.
> > >
> > > Your patch is two-stage delete, with the additional of a usecount
> > > function.  So you have to move the usecount from the module to each
> > > object it registers: great for filesystems, but I don't think it buys
> > > you anything (since they were easy anyway).
> > 
> > I'm aware of the init problem, what I described was the core problem,
> > which prevents any further cleanup.
> 
> I don't think of either of them as core, they are two problems.

Actually, with one stage init, module unload is essentially a special
case of module load failure, consider:
	module_init()
	{
		/* initialize stuff */
		...

		wait_event_interruptible(wq, 0 == 1);

		/* clean stuff up */
		...
		return -EINTR
	}

-- 
David Gibson			| For every complex problem there is a
david@gibson.dropbear.id.au	| solution which is simple, neat and
				| wrong.
http://www.ozlabs.org/people/dgibson