Linux-kernel mailing list archive 1998-10,: Re: kmod fix

# Re: kmod fix

Jacques Gelinas (jack@solucorp.qc.ca)
Thu, 12 Mar 1998 15:08:18 -0500 (EST)

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Mark Spencer: "network enhancement"
- Previous message: Kirk Petersen: "Re: kmod fix"

On Thu, 12 Mar 1998, Kirk Petersen wrote:

> > Thats fairly horrible to get right. You also have to cope with two parallel
> > module loads going on and the case where the second kernel fork fails because
> > you are out of processes
>
> After looking at the problem last night, I got the feeling that
> there are three cases:
>
> 1. a single module is requested (it might have many dependencies but
> only one is passed through the request_module function)
>
> 2. a module is requested and loaded. Later this module loads
> other modules (ppp works this way, i think)
>
> 3. a module is requested and while loading, requests another
> module be loaded
>
> Assuming that this is a correct analysis, case number 3 is the
> real problem. Number 1 and 2 are already handled by kmod. I spent
> a while last night trying to create a patch to kmod that would solve
> number 3 but feel like fixing the offending modules would be easier.
> Now, anyone know how correct the above analysis is? I didn't
> have a chance to look at the "offending" modules much (but will certainly
> be doing that tonight).

With kerneld, we had the ability to do ksystem() from a module. Have we
lost this ability ?

--------------------------------------------------------
Jacques Gelinas (jacques@solucorp.qc.ca)
Linuxconf: The ultimate administration system for Linux.
see http://www.solucorp.qc.ca/linuxconf
new developments: remote GUI admin, multiple machines admin, wu-ftpd

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu

- Next message: Mark Spencer: "network enhancement"
- Previous message: Kirk Petersen: "Re: kmod fix"