Re: Another idea for simplifying locking in kernel/module.c

From: Rusty Russell (rusty@rustcorp.com.au)
Date: Fri Jan 10 2003 - 05:15:24 EST

Next message: James Curbo: "Re: DMA timeouts on Promise 20267 IDE card"
Previous message: Rusty Russell: "Re: Another idea for simplifying locking in kernel/module.c"
In reply to: Andre Hedrick: "Re: Another idea for simplifying locking in kernel/module.c"
Next in thread: Bill Davidsen: "Re: Another idea for simplifying locking in kernel/module.c"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

In message <Pine.LNX.4.10.10301100138270.31168-100000@master.linux-ide.org> you
write:
>
> I'll bite .... what the flip is [unsafe] ??

Use of obsolete (racy) module reference count interface. ie. someone's
upping the reference count with __MOD_INC_USE_COUNT() or
MOD_INC_USE_COUNT(), not "try_module_get()", so we can't tell them
that the module is going away so they couldn't get a reference.

Going through and fixing these up is generally fairly easy.

Hope that clarifies,
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/

Next message: James Curbo: "Re: DMA timeouts on Promise 20267 IDE card"
Previous message: Rusty Russell: "Re: Another idea for simplifying locking in kernel/module.c"
In reply to: Andre Hedrick: "Re: Another idea for simplifying locking in kernel/module.c"
Next in thread: Bill Davidsen: "Re: Another idea for simplifying locking in kernel/module.c"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 22:00:32 EST