On Monday August 27, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > +/* Reference counting, callback cleanup, etc., all look racy as heck. > + * And why is cb_set an atomic? */
Agreed.... so do we really want this code in mainline? is the old code so bad that this is better? - cb_set should not be atomic. - This looks like a job for async-rpc rather than a kernel thread - If you do use a thread, you at least want __module_get before starting the thread, and module_put_and_exit to terminate the thread. - Can you just use 'cb_client' rather than cb_set? If you move rpc_create into the thread, you don't need to set cb_client until the callback is successful. Then add a 'cb_active' flag bit so that you don't have two callbacks at the same time, and it should be less racy.. The other 14 patches all look ok. Thanks, NeilBrown - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
