Re: [PATCH] Module : call synchronize_sched() between module exit() and free.

[Frank Ch. Eigler]

Hi -

On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 10:27:51PM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> [...]
> Actually, it's not placing a marker/tracepoint in a module which causes
> a problem, this is a simple function call after all, and correctly dealt
> with by current module.c code.
> [...]

Just to spell it out, it is this scenario I'd like to see documented:

module-foo.c:
   foo() { ... trace_mark (foo, "..."); ... }

module-bar.c:
   setup() { ... marker_probe_register ("foo" , ..., &foo_handler ); }
   teardown() { ... marker_probe_unregister ("foo" , ..., &foo_handler ); }
   foo_handler() { }

1)  module-foo loads
2)  module-bar loads
3)  module-bar.c:setup()
4)  module-foo unloads

What happens here?  Certainly no more calls to foo_handler, but is
that all?  (Would it not be desirable for an active marker to cause
module-foo's refcount to increase, so as to prevent unloading at this
time?)

5)  module-bar.c:teardown()

Can this teardown code succeed fully even if module-foo is already
dead and gone?
  

- FChE
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/