In message <20021119000924.GD6989@redhat.com> you write:
> On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 10:49:21AM +1100, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > In message <Pine.GSO.4.21.0211180403440.23400-100000@steklov.math.psu.edu>
you
> > write:
> > > Not really. For case in question (block devices) there is only one path
> > > and I'd rather keep it that way, thank you very much.
> >
> > See other posting. This is a fundamental design decision, and it's
> > not changing. Sorry.
>
> Then you'll have to back out the patch to module.c because it's already
> changed.
Yeah, I just noticed. To be honest, I was wrong. And the code
shouldn't be put back until (if ever) I have a solution which solves
the races and *doesn't* break working code.
And meanwhile, there are more important things (like reducing the 400k
overhead of CONFIG_KALLSYMS adds to the kernel).
Sorry for the overzealousness,
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Nov 23 2002 - 22:00:30 EST