From: Daniel Phillips <phillips@arcor.de>
To: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>,
Roman Zippel <zippel@linux-m68k.org>
Cc: Jamie Lokier <lk@tantalophile.demon.co.uk>,
Alexander Viro <viro@math.psu.edu>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] Raceless module interface
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 04:19:18 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <E17pg3H-0007pb-00@starship> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20020913015502.1D43F2C070@lists.samba.org>
On Friday 13 September 2002 03:30, Rusty Russell wrote:
> In message <Pine.LNX.4.44.0209121520300.28515-100000@serv> you write:
> > The usecount is optional, the only important question a module must be
> > able to answer is: Are there any objects/references belonging to the
> > module? It's a simple yes/no question. If a module can't answer that, it
> > likely has more problem than just module unloading.
>
> Ah, we're assuming you insert synchronize_kernel() between the call
> to stop and the call to exit?
>
> In which case *why* do you check the use count *inside* exit_affs_fs?
> Why not get exit_module() to do "if (mod->usecount() != 0) return
> -EBUSY; else mod->exit();"?
Because mod->usecount may be a totally inadequate way of determining
if a module is busy. How does it work for LSM, for example?
> There's the other issue of symmetry. If you allocate memory, in
> start, do you clean it up in stop or exit?
Actually, I'm going to press you on why you think you even need a
two stage stop. I know you have your reasons, but I doubt any of
the effects you aim at cannot be achieved with a single stage
stop/exit. Could you please summarize the argument in favor of the
two stage stop?
> Similarly for other
> resources: you call mod->exit() every time start fails, so that is
> supposed to check that mod->start() succeeded?
He does? That's not right. ->start should clean up after itself if
it fails, like any other good Linux citizen.
> Of course, separating start into "init" and "start" allows you to
> solve the half-initialized problem as well as clarify the rules.
I doubt it gives any new capability at all. The same with the
entrenched separation at the user level between create and init
module: what does it give you that an error exit from a single
create/init would not? Sure, I know it's not going to change,
but I'd like to know what the thinking was, and especially, if
there's a non-bogus reason, I'd like to know it.
--
Daniel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-09-13 2:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 90+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-09-04 18:02 Question about pseudo filesystems Jamie Lokier
2002-09-07 12:00 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-09-07 13:36 ` Alexander Viro
2002-09-07 18:27 ` Jamie Lokier
2002-09-07 19:47 ` Alexander Viro
2002-09-08 2:21 ` Jamie Lokier
2002-09-08 2:43 ` Alexander Viro
2002-09-15 1:41 ` Moving a mount point (was Re: Question about pseudo filesystems) Rob Landley
2002-09-08 16:00 ` Question about pseudo filesystems Daniel Phillips
2002-09-09 19:48 ` Jamie Lokier
2002-09-09 20:06 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-09-10 0:44 ` Jamie Lokier
2002-09-10 1:40 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-09-10 1:56 ` Jamie Lokier
2002-09-10 2:53 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-09-10 3:26 ` Jamie Lokier
2002-09-10 3:47 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-09-10 9:15 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-09-10 10:17 ` Roman Zippel
2002-09-11 18:35 ` [RFC] Raceless module interface Daniel Phillips
2002-09-11 18:53 ` Oliver Neukum
2002-09-11 19:20 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-09-11 20:29 ` Oliver Neukum
2002-09-11 21:15 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-09-11 21:26 ` Jamie Lokier
2002-09-11 21:47 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-09-12 1:42 ` Rusty Russell
2002-09-12 2:09 ` Jamie Lokier
2002-09-12 3:13 ` Rusty Russell
2002-09-12 3:47 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-09-12 3:53 ` Alexander Viro
2002-09-12 4:11 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-09-12 4:40 ` Rusty Russell
2002-09-12 5:27 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-09-12 14:46 ` Gerhard Mack
2002-09-13 0:39 ` Rusty Russell
2002-09-13 2:23 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-09-12 5:35 ` Rusty Russell
2002-09-12 4:52 ` Rusty Russell
2002-09-12 5:58 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-09-12 7:00 ` Rusty Russell
2002-09-13 8:18 ` Helge Hafting
2002-09-12 3:32 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-09-12 1:31 ` Rusty Russell
2002-09-12 9:10 ` Oliver Neukum
2002-09-12 11:27 ` Roman Zippel
2002-09-12 13:03 ` Rusty Russell
2002-09-12 13:44 ` Roman Zippel
2002-09-13 1:30 ` Rusty Russell
2002-09-13 2:19 ` Daniel Phillips [this message]
2002-09-13 6:51 ` Rusty Russell
2002-09-13 13:34 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-09-13 13:52 ` Thunder from the hill
2002-09-13 14:09 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-09-13 14:33 ` Thunder from the hill
2002-09-13 14:44 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-09-13 14:59 ` Thunder from the hill
2002-09-13 15:17 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-09-13 15:27 ` Thunder from the hill
2002-09-13 15:37 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-09-16 2:17 ` Rusty Russell
2002-09-16 16:13 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-09-16 16:36 ` Understanding the Principles of Argumentation #3 Daniel Phillips
2002-09-16 16:42 ` Robinson Maureira Castillo
2002-09-16 17:29 ` Cort Dougan
2002-09-16 22:31 ` David Woodhouse
2002-10-01 14:13 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-10-01 14:27 ` David Woodhouse
2002-09-13 15:59 ` [RFC] Raceless module interface Daniel Phillips
2002-09-13 3:14 ` David Gibson
2002-09-13 10:35 ` Roman Zippel
2002-09-13 13:53 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-09-13 15:13 ` Roman Zippel
2002-09-13 15:30 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-09-13 15:55 ` Roman Zippel
2002-09-13 16:09 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-09-13 16:39 ` Thunder from the hill
2002-09-13 17:12 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-09-16 0:24 ` Bill Davidsen
2002-09-16 1:49 ` Rusty Russell
2002-09-16 21:36 ` Roman Zippel
2002-09-16 21:48 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-09-16 22:44 ` Roman Zippel
2002-09-11 15:28 ` Question about pseudo filesystems Bill Davidsen
2002-09-11 19:36 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-09-09 20:12 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-09-09 22:56 ` Jamie Lokier
2002-09-10 1:39 ` Alexander Viro
2002-09-09 20:18 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-09-10 6:48 ` Kai Henningsen
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=E17pg3H-0007pb-00@starship \
--to=phillips@arcor.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lk@tantalophile.demon.co.uk \
--cc=rusty@rustcorp.com.au \
--cc=viro@math.psu.edu \
--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