Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 13 Jan 2003 17:25:13 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 13 Jan 2003 17:25:13 -0500 Received: from sex.inr.ac.ru ([193.233.7.165]:59871 "HELO sex.inr.ac.ru") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Mon, 13 Jan 2003 17:25:12 -0500 From: kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru Message-Id: <200301132232.BAA09527@sex.inr.ac.ru> Subject: Re: [RFC] Migrating net/sched to new module interface To: rusty@rustcorp.com.au (Rusty Russell) Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 01:32:56 +0300 (MSK) Cc: kronos@kronoz.cjb.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20030103051033.1A2AA2C003@lists.samba.org> from "Rusty Russell" at Jan 3, 3 04:10:19 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hello! > Hmm, I thought the sched stuff all runs under the network brlock? If > so, it doesn't need to be held in, since it's not preemptible. > > I haven't checked, though... It runs under semaphore. Which does not matter at all, because the hole void cleanup_module(void) { unregister_qdisc(&cbq_qdisc_ops); } remained in any case, be it under some preemptive, nonprepemtive lock or not under a lock at all. BTW, Rusty, a question... I do not understand, what is purpose of this "new" module stuff at all? If we still need to query something in module.c to create each instanse of something it smells exactly "old" broken approach. I just do not see differences. It is not essential in this particular case, but it would be funny to ask it each time when creating a tcp socket. Alexey - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/