Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 24 Feb 2003 11:35:03 -0800 | From | Max Krasnyansky <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH/RFC] New module refcounting for net_proto_family |
| |
At 05:01 PM 2/23/2003, Rusty Russell wrote: >> >better know *exactly* what you are doing", even though the "try" is a >> >bit of a misnomer. >> Yeah, I think 'try' is definitely a misnomer in this case. >> How about something like this ? > >No, I definitely want the name __try_module_get. Sure, it's a >misnomer in one sense, which will hopefully scare off people looking >for an easy way out. OTOH, it accurately reflects "you should be >using try_module_get but you have special circumstances" more >eloquently than any comment ever would. Especially since there are >only a handful of places where it is appropriate. > >I think a CONFIG option for checking is overkill: better is to grep >each kernel for __try_module_get() being added and make sure the damn >thing doesn't spread 8) Ok.
>+/* Sometimes we know we already have a refcount, and it's easier not >+ to handle the error case (which only happens with rmmod --wait). */ >+static inline void __try_module_get(struct module *module) >+{ >+ local_inc(&module->ref[get_cpu()].count); >+ put_cpu(); >+}
I still think that __try is confusing and __module_get() would be more appropriate name for that function. But I can live with __try_module_get() :) I'll make new patch for net/socket.c as soon as yours goes in.
Thanks Max
- 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/
| |