In message <20021125232610.A22825@almesberger.net> you write:
> Rusty Russell wrote:
> > There's currently no way to abort if you've exposed interfaces and then
> > something fails ("don't do that" is great except noone knows that, and
> > it's not always possible or nice)
>
> Hmm, if "expose interface" == "publish symbol", why can't you simply
> defer publishing until after initialization completes ? If "expose
> interface" == "register something somewhere", then this has to be
> undone anyway. Or am I overlooking something here ?
Yes, but between doing and undoing (in the failure path) someone has
started using the module. The old modutils would unload it underneath
them here. I catch it (if CONFIG_MODULE_UNLOAD, otherwise I can't)
and yell "module is now stuck" and leave it hanging.
Given we have a method of isolating a module already, it seems logical
to use it to prevent exactly this race. Unfortunately my last attempt
assumed noone did this, and broke IDE and SCSI (hence pissing
*everyone* off 8).
Cheers,
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 30 2002 - 22:00:13 EST