On Tue, 2 Jul 2002, Werner Almesberger wrote:
> Actually, if module exit synchronizes properly, even the
> return-after-removal case shouldn't exist, because we'd simply
> wait for this call to return.
>
> Hmm, interesting. Did I just make the whole problem go away,
> or is travel fatigue playing tricks on my brain ? :-)
You redefined it in what might be a useful way...
My question is, if the race condition involves use of a module after it's
removed, is removing it and leaving it in memory going to be better? With
a driver for an unregistered device be more likely do the right thing even
if it's in memory? Isn't the right thing to make everything stop using the
module before ending it, for any definition of ending? Because I certainly
can't define what the right thing to do would be otherwise, at least in
any general sense.
It seems slightly like that tree falling in the forest, and no one to hear
it. Much easier to handle removal right than service requests after close.
-- bill davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com> CTO, TMR Associates, Inc Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979.- 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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jul 07 2002 - 22:00:12 EST