On Tue, 2006-03-07 at 02:41 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Al Viro <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 06, 2006 at 01:53:44PM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> > > > rmmod your_turd </sys/spew/from/your_turd
> > > > and there you go. rmmod can _NOT_ wait for sysfs references to go away.
> > >
> > > To be fair, the only part of the kernel that supports the above process,
> > > is the network stack. And they implemented a special kind of lock to
> > > handle just this kind of thing.
> > >
> > > That is not something that I want the rest of the kernel to have to use.
> > > If your code blocks when doing the above thing, that's fine with me.
> >
> > One word: fail. With -EBUSY.
>
> It seems quite simple to make wait_for_zero_refcount() interruptible?
> Something like...
Al is correct.
It would have been so simple to implement rmmod as blocking, but it
seems that not what people want. They want modprobe -r to fail if the
module is busy, without ever causing spurious failures.
Hope that clarifies?
Rusty.
--
ccontrol: http://ozlabs.org/~rusty/ccontrol
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
