On Saturday January 5, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Have lockd_up start lockd using kthread_run. With this change, > lockd_down now blocks until lockd actually exits, so there's no longer > need for the waitqueue code at the end of lockd_down. This also means > that only one lockd can be running at a time which simplifies the code > within lockd's main loop. > > Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > ---
> - module_put_and_exit(0); > + module_put(THIS_MODULE); > + return 0; This changes bothers me. Putting the last ref to a module in code inside that module is not safe, which is why module_put_and_exit exists. So this module_put is either unsafe or not needed. I think the latter. As you say in the comment, lockd_down now blocks until lockd actually exits. As every caller for lockd_down will own a reference to the lockd module, the lockd thread no longer needs to own a reference too. So I think it is safe to remove the module_put, and also remove the __module_get at the top of the lockd function. Also, I suspect that the "no users" and "no lockd running" messages should probably be changed to BUGs as they really should be impossible, not just unlikely. Also: > * Check whether there's a new lockd process before > * shutting down the hosts and clearing the slot. > */ This comment should go as the actual check has gone. The rest looks fine. It is a substantial improvement, 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/
