From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 20 Feb 2003 19:30:36 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 20 Feb 2003 19:30:36 -0500 Received: from dp.samba.org ([66.70.73.150]:28856 "EHLO lists.samba.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 20 Feb 2003 19:30:35 -0500 From: Rusty Russell To: Max Krasnyansky Cc: "David S. Miller" , Alexey Kuznetsov , Jean Tourrilhes , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC] New module refcounting for net_proto_family In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 20 Feb 2003 09:38:50 -0800." <5.1.0.14.2.20030220092216.0d3fefd0@mail1.qualcomm.com> Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 11:30:25 +1100 Message-Id: <20030221004041.05C1F2C2D5@lists.samba.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In message <5.1.0.14.2.20030220092216.0d3fefd0@mail1.qualcomm.com> you write: > >There has been talk of this, but OTOH, the admin has explicitly gone > >out of their way to remove this module. They really don't want anyone > >new using it. Presumably at this very moment they are killing off all > >the processes they can find with such a socket. > The thing is that once those processes are killed sockets will be > destroyed and release the module anyway. i.e. There is no reason to > sort of artificially force accept() to fail. Everything will be cleaned > up once the process is gone. Yes, but in practical terms it's probably going to fork a child with that socket. > >I think it can be argued both ways, honestly. > Yep. And I'd argue in for of module_get() :) My only real insistence in this is that such an interface be called __try_module_get(), because the "__" warn people that it's a "you'd better know *exactly* what you are doing", even though the "try" is a bit of a misnomer. "module_get" sounds like a "simpler" try_module_get()... Rusty. -- Anyone who quotes me in their sig is an idiot. -- Rusty Russell.