On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 17:02:46 -0400 (EDT),
Alan Stern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > No, only the core module has to stay. For example, every time you
> > register an input device you pin input.ko as it is the module that
> > provides ->release() method for input devices. You can freely unload
> >
On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 15:38:52 -0400 (EDT),
Alan Stern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Apr 2007, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > Unfortunately all this "wait for refcount in module's exit" schemas
> > lead to the following deadlock:
> >
> > rmmod my_module < /path/to/some/file/increment
On Tue, 2007-04-17 at 00:44 +0400, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 16, 2007 at 03:38:52PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> > 3. Change the module code so that rmmod can return _before_ the
> > module is actually unloaded from memory (but after the module's
> > exit routine has completed
On Mon, 16 Apr 2007, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > > What about 4:
> > >
> > > When registering an [k]object increment refcount of module that
> > > provides ->release() function.
> > >
> > > That would normally require ->release function to be placed on
> > > subsystem level to allow unloading i
On Mon, Apr 16, 2007 at 03:38:52PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> 3. Change the module code so that rmmod can return _before_ the
> module is actually unloaded from memory (but after the module's
> exit routine has completed). This will lead to more problems.
> For example, what
On 4/16/07, Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mon, Apr 16, 2007 at 03:03:16PM -0400, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On 4/16/07, Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On Mon, Apr 16, 2007 at 02:30:17PM -0400, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> >> On 4/16/07, Cornelia Huck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >Hi,
On 4/16/07, Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mon, Apr 16, 2007 at 03:47:13PM -0400, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On 4/16/07, Alan Stern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On Mon, 16 Apr 2007, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> >
> >> On 4/16/07, Cornelia Huck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > Hi,
> >> >
> >> >
On Mon, Apr 16, 2007 at 03:03:16PM -0400, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On 4/16/07, Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On Mon, Apr 16, 2007 at 02:30:17PM -0400, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> >> On 4/16/07, Cornelia Huck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >Hi,
> >> >
> >> >based on the discussion in "How shou
On Mon, Apr 16, 2007 at 03:47:13PM -0400, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On 4/16/07, Alan Stern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On Mon, 16 Apr 2007, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> >
> >> On 4/16/07, Cornelia Huck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > Hi,
> >> >
> >> > based on the discussion in "How should an exit r
On 4/16/07, Alan Stern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mon, 16 Apr 2007, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On 4/16/07, Cornelia Huck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > based on the discussion in "How should an exit routine wait for
> > release() callbacks?", I've cooked up some patches that make mo
On Mon, 16 Apr 2007, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On 4/16/07, Cornelia Huck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > based on the discussion in "How should an exit routine wait for
> > release() callbacks?", I've cooked up some patches that make module
> > unload wait until the last reference for a
On 4/16/07, Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mon, Apr 16, 2007 at 02:30:17PM -0400, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On 4/16/07, Cornelia Huck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Hi,
> >
> >based on the discussion in "How should an exit routine wait for
> >release() callbacks?", I've cooked up some patche
On Mon, Apr 16, 2007 at 07:36:19PM +0200, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> Hi,
>
> based on the discussion in "How should an exit routine wait for
> release() callbacks?"
Wait, why is this needed anymore with the recent work in splitting sysfs
away from the backing code?
thanks,
greg k-h
-
To unsubscribe
On Mon, Apr 16, 2007 at 02:30:17PM -0400, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On 4/16/07, Cornelia Huck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Hi,
> >
> >based on the discussion in "How should an exit routine wait for
> >release() callbacks?", I've cooked up some patches that make module
> >unload wait until the last
On 4/16/07, Cornelia Huck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
based on the discussion in "How should an exit routine wait for
release() callbacks?", I've cooked up some patches that make module
unload wait until the last reference for a kobject has been dropped.
This should plug the "release function
Hi,
based on the discussion in "How should an exit routine wait for
release() callbacks?", I've cooked up some patches that make module
unload wait until the last reference for a kobject has been dropped.
This should plug the "release function in already deleted module" race;
however, if the last
16 matches
Mail list logo
