Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 25 Sep 2007 10:40:55 +0900 | From | Tejun Heo <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/4] module: implement module_inhibit_unload() |
| |
Rusty Russell wrote: > On Tue, 2007-09-25 at 08:18 +0900, Tejun Heo wrote: >>> Given your description of this tool as a "sledgehammer," might it not be >>> easier to just take and hold module_mutex for the duration of the unload >>> block? >> That would be easier but... >> >> * It would serialize users of the sledgehammer. >> * It would block loading modules (which is often more important than >> unloading them) when things go south. > > 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.
/* Final destruction now noone is using it. */ if (mod->exit != NULL) { mutex_unlock(&module_mutex); mod->exit(); mutex_lock(&module_mutex); }
> 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.
Thanks.
-- tejun - 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/
| |