[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20110506123019.80461d5d.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Fri, 6 May 2011 12:30:19 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Olaf Hering <olaf@...fle.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kexec@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] add hook to read_from_oldmem() to check for non-ram
pages
On Fri, 6 May 2011 12:55:46 +0200
Olaf Hering <olaf@...fle.de> wrote:
> Should the called code increase/decrease the modules refcount instead?
> I remember there was some MODULE_INC/MODULE_DEC macro (cant remember the
> exact name) at some point. What needs to be done inside the module to
> prevent an unload while its still in use? Is it __module_get/module_put
> for each call of fn()?
A try_module_get(THIS_MODULE) in the register function will do the trick.
However it's unneeded. Documentation/DocBook/kernel-hacking.tmpl tells us
try_module_get() module_put()
These manipulate the module usage count, to protect against
removal (a module also can't be removed if another module uses one
of its exported symbols: see below). Before calling into module
code, you should call <function>try_module_get()</function> on
that module: if it fails, then the module is being removed and you
should act as if it wasn't there. Otherwise, you can safely enter
the module, and call <function>module_put()</function> when you're
finished.
So as your module will have a reference to vmcore.c's register and unregister
functions, nothing needs to be done: the presence of the client module alone
will pin the vmcore.c module.
However it's all moot, because the fs/proc/vmcore.c code cannot
presently be built as a module and it's rather unlikely that it ever
will be.
--
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