Re: [PATCH] Proposed module init race fix.
Petr Vandrovec (VANDROVE@vc.cvut.cz)
Wed, 15 Jan 2003 15:21:22 +0100
On 15 Jan 03 at 20:06, Rusty Russell wrote:
> In message <200301150846.AAA01104@adam.yggdrasil.com> you write:
> > On 2003-01-15, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > >It's possible to start using a module, and then have it fail
> > >initialization. In 2.4, this resulted in random behaviour. One
> > >solution to this is to make all interfaces two-stage: reserve
> > >everything you need (which might fail), the activate them. This
> > >means changing about 1600 modules, and deprecating every interface
> > >they use.
> > Could you explain this "random behavior" of 2.4 a bit more?
> > As far as I know, if a module's init function fails, it must
> > unregister everything that it has registered up to that point.
> And if someone's using it, the module gets unloaded underneath them.
No. Unregister will go to sleep until it is safe to unregister
driver. See unregister_netdevice for perfect example, but I'm sure
that there are other unregister functions which make sure that after
unregister it is OK to destroy everything.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to firstname.lastname@example.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/