Rusty Russell wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-09-25 at 08:18 +0900, Tejun Heo wrote:
>>> Given your description of this tool as a "sledgehammer," might it not be
>>> easier to just take and hold module_mutex for the duration of the unload
>>> block?
>> That would be easier but...
>>
>> * It would serialize users of the sledgehammer.
>> * It would block loading modules (which is often more important than
>> unloading them) when things go south.
>
> My concern is that you're dropping the module mutex around ->exit now.
> I don't *think* this should matter, but it's worth considering.
We always did that. Before the patch the code segment looked like the
following.
/* Final destruction now noone is using it. */
if (mod->exit != NULL) {
mutex_unlock(&module_mutex);
mod->exit();
mutex_lock(&module_mutex);
}
> I really wonder if an explicit "kill_this_attribute()" is a better way
> to go than this...
I think this sort of temporary unload blocking would be useful for other
cases like this.
Thanks.
--
tejun
-
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]
