Messages in this thread | | | From | Rusty Russell <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Proposed module init race fix. | Date | Wed, 15 Jan 2003 20:06:43 +1100 |
| |
In message <200301150846.AAA01104@adam.yggdrasil.com> you write: > On 2003-01-15, Rusty Russell wrote: > >It's possible to start using a module, and then have it fail > >initialization. In 2.4, this resulted in random behaviour. One > >solution to this is to make all interfaces two-stage: reserve > >everything you need (which might fail), the activate them. This > >means changing about 1600 modules, and deprecating every interface > >they use. > > Could you explain this "random behavior" of 2.4 a bit more? > As far as I know, if a module's init function fails, it must > unregister everything that it has registered up to that point.
And if someone's using it, the module gets unloaded underneath them.
Rusty. -- Anyone who quotes me in their sig is an idiot. -- Rusty Russell. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |