[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <46F91B72.1080109@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 23:30:10 +0900
From: Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com>
To: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
CC: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, ebiederm@...ssion.com,
cornelia.huck@...ibm.com, greg@...ah.com, kay.sievers@...y.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rusty@...tcorp.com.au
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] module: implement module_inhibit_unload()
Alan Stern wrote:
>> The unloading can proceed once module_unload_inhibit_cnt reaches zero.
>> An unloading thread only has to care about inhibition put in effect
>> before unloading has started, so there's no need to check again.
>
> You haven't fully answered Jon's question. Suppose
> module_unload_inhibit_cnt is nonzero, so the task adds itself to the
> module_unload_wait queue, changes to TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE, and calls
> schedule. There's nothing to prevent somebody else from waking the
> task back up before the original inhibition has been lifted.
Hmmm... I might be missing something here. Who else can wake up a
thread in uninterruptible sleep?
Thanks.
--
tejun
-
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