Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S265505AbUAZFzV (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Jan 2004 00:55:21 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S265529AbUAZFzV (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Jan 2004 00:55:21 -0500 Received: from gizmo08bw.bigpond.com ([144.140.70.18]:63383 "HELO gizmo08bw.bigpond.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S265505AbUAZFzO (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Jan 2004 00:55:14 -0500 Mail-Copies-To: never To: Linux Kernel List Subject: Re: PATCH: (as177) Add class_device_unregister_wait() and platform_device_unregister_wait() to the driver model core Keywords: module References:

<20040125222242.A24443@mail.kroptech.com> <200401260521.i0Q5LRha021370@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> From: Steve Youngs X-Face: #/1'_-|5_1$xjR,mVKhpfMJcRh8"k}_a{EkIO:Ox<]@zl/Yr|H,qH#3jJi6Aw(Mg@"!+Z"C N_S3!3jzW^FnPeumv4l#,E}J.+e%0q(U>#b-#`~>l^A!_j5AEgpU)>t+VYZ$:El7hLa1:%%L=3%B>n K{^jU_{& Organization: Linux Users - Fanatics Dept. X-URL: X-Request-PGP: X-OpenPGP-Fingerprint: 1659 2093 19D5 C06E D320 3A20 1D27 DB4B A94B 3003 X-Attribution: SY Mail-Followup-To: Linux Kernel List Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 15:55:06 +1000 In-Reply-To: <200401260521.i0Q5LRha021370@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> (Valdis Kletnieks's message of "Mon, 26 Jan 2004 00:21:27 -0500") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.110002 (No Gnus v0.2) XEmacs/21.4 (Reasonable Discussion, linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1953 Lines: 52 --=-=-= * Valdis Kletnieks writes: > On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 15:06:48 +1000, Steve Youngs said: >> > A boolean is just a one-bit reference count. If the maximum number of >> > simultaneous 'users' for a given module is one, then a boolean will work. >> > If there is potential for more than one simultaneous user then you need >> > more bits. >> >> Why? A module is either being used or it isn't, the number of uses >> shouldn't even come into it. > OK. There's 2 users of the module. The first one exits. How does > it (or anything else) know that it's NOT safe to just clear the > in-use bit and clean it up? Because the 2nd user is still using the module so its in-use bit should still be set. Remember that when the module was first loaded it registered a function with the kernel for testing whether the module is in use. I must be overlooking something because I see the answer so clearly. Maybe if someone could give me a real world example of a situation where it'd be hard/impossible/unsafe to unload a module and I'll see if my ideas can be applied. -- |---------------------| | Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. | | The proof of the pudding, is under the crust. | |---------------------------------| --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Eicq - The XEmacs ICQ Client iEYEABECAAYFAkAUq7wACgkQHSfbS6lLMANqhACbBQG73p0s88uQVVbBNPt8JWxp k8wAoIEhv65WL3gX0MJgL0XiDVSBmq8y =mYI6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=-- - 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/