[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1190686320.27805.258.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date:	Tue, 25 Sep 2007 12:12:00 +1000
From:	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
To:	Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com>
Cc:	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, ebiederm@...ssion.com,
	cornelia.huck@...ibm.com, greg@...ah.com,
	stern@...land.harvard.edu, kay.sievers@...y.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] module: implement module_inhibit_unload()
On Tue, 2007-09-25 at 10:40 +0900, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Rusty Russell wrote:
> > 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.
Hi Tejun,
	Thanks, misread patch.
> > 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.
I hope not: this doesn't work in general.  Calling into a module after
->exit has called assumes that the exit function doesn't free up or
overwrite stuff the other functions need.
Cheers,
Rusty.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
 
