At 05:01 PM 2/23/2003, Rusty Russell wrote:
>> >better know *exactly* what you are doing", even though the "try" is a
>> >bit of a misnomer.
>> Yeah, I think 'try' is definitely a misnomer in this case.
>> How about something like this ?
>
>No, I definitely want the name __try_module_get. Sure, it's a
>misnomer in one sense, which will hopefully scare off people looking
>for an easy way out. OTOH, it accurately reflects "you should be
>using try_module_get but you have special circumstances" more
>eloquently than any comment ever would. Especially since there are
>only a handful of places where it is appropriate.
>
>I think a CONFIG option for checking is overkill: better is to grep
>each kernel for __try_module_get() being added and make sure the damn
>thing doesn't spread 8)
Ok.
>+/* Sometimes we know we already have a refcount, and it's easier not
>+ to handle the error case (which only happens with rmmod --wait). */
>+static inline void __try_module_get(struct module *module)
>+{
>+ local_inc(&module->ref[get_cpu()].count);
>+ put_cpu();
>+}
I still think that __try is confusing and __module_get() would be more
appropriate name for that function. But I can live with __try_module_get() :)
I'll make new patch for net/socket.c as soon as yours goes in.
Thanks
Max
-
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Feb 28 2003 - 22:00:21 EST