From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261544AbTEDSeY (ORCPT ); Sun, 4 May 2003 14:34:24 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261561AbTEDSeX (ORCPT ); Sun, 4 May 2003 14:34:23 -0400 Received: from pat.uio.no ([129.240.130.16]:19659 "EHLO pat.uio.no") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261544AbTEDSeW (ORCPT ); Sun, 4 May 2003 14:34:22 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16053.24599.277205.64363@charged.uio.no> Date: Sun, 4 May 2003 20:46:47 +0200 To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: Trond Myklebust , torvalds@transmeta.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] remove useless MOD_{INC,DEC}_USE_COUNT from sunrpc In-Reply-To: <20030504203655.A11574@lst.de> References: <20030504191447.C10659@lst.de> <16053.20430.903508.188812@charged.uio.no> <20030504203655.A11574@lst.de> X-Mailer: VM 7.07 under 21.4 (patch 8) "Honest Recruiter" XEmacs Lucid Reply-To: trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no From: Trond Myklebust Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org >>>>> " " == Christoph Hellwig writes: > On Sun, May 04, 2003 at 07:37:18PM +0200, Trond Myklebust > wrote: >> There's another case which you appear to be ignoring: >> rpciod_down() is interruptible and does not have to wait on the >> rpciod() thread to complete. > What do you thing about something like the following to wait on > the thread in module_exit()? I don't understand. That is still an interruptible wait, so how would that help? What is wrong with just assuming that the rpciod() thread might need to run independently of the calling module for a short period of time in order to kill/clean up the pending tasks? Cheers, Trond