On Friday 13 September 2002 18:39, Thunder from the hill wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, 13 Sep 2002, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > That's debatable. Arguably, a failed ->module_cleanup() should be
> > retried on every rmmod -a, but expecting module.c to just keep
> > retrying mindlessly on its own sounds too much like a busy wait.
>
> Hmmm. You might as well give it back to the user.
>
> rmmod: remove failed: do it again!
That's what happens now. We can certainly improve the error message,
and actually, that just falls out, from properly adding an error
return code to ->cleanup_module()
> So the cleanup code could as well just do it on its own.
???
> > > Why is that sloppy? E.g. kfree() happily accepts NULL pointers as well.
> >
> > That is sloppy. Different discussion.
>
> What should kfree do in your opinion? BUG()?
Yuppers:
static inline void kfree_test(void *object)
{
if (object)
kfree(object);
}
#define kfree_sloppy kfree_test
s/kfree/kfree_sloppy/g
(But see "different discussion" above.)
> doodle.c:12: attempted to free NULL pointer, as you know it already is.
Um. You know it's NULL and you freed it anyway?
(But see "different discussion" above.)
> > I take it that the points you didn't reply to are points that you
> > agree with? (The main point being, that we both advocate a simple,
> > two-method interface for module load/unload.)
>
> You could even do it using three methods.
Yes, or two, my favorite.
-- Daniel - 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 Sep 15 2002 - 22:00:34 EST