Re: Another idea for simplifying locking in kernel/module.c

From: Rusty Russell (rusty@rustcorp.com.au)
Date: Wed Jan 08 2003 - 06:46:24 EST

Next message: Rusty Russell: "Re: Userspace Test Framework for module loader porting"
Previous message: Rusty Russell: "Re: [2.5 patch] MODULE_FORCE_UNLOAD must depend on MODULE_UNLOAD"
Next in thread: Adam J. Richter: "Re: Another idea for simplifying locking in kernel/module.c"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

In message <200301070219.SAA12905@adam.yggdrasil.com> you write:
> Here is a way to replace all of the specialized "stop CPU"
> locking code in kernel/module.c with an rw_semaphore by using
> down_read_trylock in try_module_get() and down_write when beginning to
> unload the module.

And now you can't modularize netfilter modules.

Rusty.

--
  Anyone who quotes me in their sig is an idiot. -- Rusty Russell.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Next message: Rusty Russell: "Re: Userspace Test Framework for module loader porting"
Previous message: Rusty Russell: "Re: [2.5 patch] MODULE_FORCE_UNLOAD must depend on MODULE_UNLOAD"
Next in thread: Adam J. Richter: "Re: Another idea for simplifying locking in kernel/module.c"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 22:00:31 EST