From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97405C433EF for ; Thu, 30 Jun 2022 22:09:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229607AbiF3WJf (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Jun 2022 18:09:35 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:59454 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229479AbiF3WJe (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Jun 2022 18:09:34 -0400 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [IPv6:2607:7c80:54:3::133]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4023B50704; Thu, 30 Jun 2022 15:09:34 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=Sender:In-Reply-To:Content-Type: MIME-Version:References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description; bh=Tb7xc4sH1KrEahBlbDzaoJzaNufCKqUnLt5CgcUm9SE=; b=rc05lfPd83uqKfhWazhXrh5rVm 7Nsk88URc5Sr95SF4omVfVbcV2SgUno9+YrPyMpVHKGKHu7OWrMQqudTTh674RmiF4T0Yd7weHtFQ 9/xJIQ6u9FG/bSyzGKo8q4SwKrPuIXdmGfZU3gjlOIASf+ZOB12AtMxRZFXs9slUc5No8Fr8RxmeP oV0K8271MWFd7koNzFYYMeAK1gWTS4vCT/nKaoYX8YnYfiUngeLPdRsXZPD1eNk6E2KTNAuSIAM4L 4ZTvJd383I5VygEQ6Jyo8gL8u/grSZ+w1wynE+8g8mn/nG6YIh/CH0zZG/7aJWuCi7Uum3t8+dRNR 3nQGo0VA==; Received: from mcgrof by bombadil.infradead.org with local (Exim 4.94.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1o72Ls-001lnX-TU; Thu, 30 Jun 2022 22:09:32 +0000 Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2022 15:09:32 -0700 From: Luis Chamberlain To: Lucas De Marchi Cc: linux-modules , lkml Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] kmod 30 Message-ID: References: <20220630153621.3fggpqrbyvunhwfu@ldmartin-desk2> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20220630153621.3fggpqrbyvunhwfu@ldmartin-desk2> Sender: Luis Chamberlain Precedence: bulk List-ID: On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 08:36:21AM -0700, Lucas De Marchi wrote: > - modprobe learned a --wait option to be used together with -r > when removing a module. This allows modprobe to keep trying the > removal if it fails because the module is still in use. An exponential backoff > time is used for further retries. > > The wait behavior provided by the kernel when not passing O_NONBLOCK > to delete_module() was removed in v3.13 due to not be used and the > consequences of having to support it in the kernel. However there may > be some users, particularly on testsuites for individual susbsystems, that > would want that. So provide a userspace implementation inside modprobe for > such users. "rmmod" doesn't have a --wait as it remains a bare minimal over > the API provided by the kernel. In future the --wait behavior can be added > to libkmod for testsuites not exec'ing modprobe for module removal. Sorry for the super late review, I was swamped. OK so the only issue I can think of is that rmmod *used* to support the kernel wait support with $(rmmod --wait) so wouldn't this be odd? It is why I had gone with: -p | --remove-patiently patiently removes the module -t | --timeout timeout in ms to remove the module You would know better though. Also just curious, is it really terrible to just support waiting forever? Luis