Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 14 Feb 2003 06:56:35 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 14 Feb 2003 06:56:35 -0500 Received: from dp.samba.org ([66.70.73.150]:43496 "EHLO lists.samba.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 14 Feb 2003 06:56:34 -0500 From: Rusty Russell To: Roman Zippel Cc: Werner Almesberger , kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru, davem@redhat.com, kronos@kronoz.cjb.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC] Migrating net/sched to new module interface In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 14 Feb 2003 12:16:54 BST." Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 23:04:13 +1100 Message-Id: <20030214120628.208112C464@lists.samba.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1217 Lines: 28 In message you write: > It's not the same, please see: > http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=104284223130775&w=2 > I explained why the current module locking is more complex and why it's > actually a three stage delete. No, here is where you show *your* ignorance of kernel locking idioms, and that your axiom is that "the new system is more complex". I suggest you read the kernel locking guide: it's in the kernel sources in Documentation/DocBook/kernel-locking.*, try "make psdocs". > Rusty, above are real problems, the module locking fixes these problems > during module_init/module_exit, but how can these problems fixed in the > other cases and how does the module locking help? This isn't even a sensible question: "This is not a module problem. How does module locking help?" You're wasting your own valuable time, too. Rusty. -- Anyone who quotes me in their sig is an idiot. -- Rusty Russell. - 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/