Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2006 22:24:00 +0000
From: Al Viro <viro@ftp.linux.org.uk>
To: Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>
Cc: Dave Peterson <dsp@llnl.gov>, Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>,
       Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] EDAC: core EDAC support code
Message-ID: <20060306222400.GK27946@ftp.linux.org.uk>
References: <200601190414.k0J4EZCV021775@hera.kernel.org> <200603061052.57188.dsp@llnl.gov> <20060306195348.GB8777@kroah.com> <200603061301.37923.dsp@llnl.gov> <20060306213203.GJ27946@ftp.linux.org.uk> <20060306215344.GB16825@kroah.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20060306215344.GB16825@kroah.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1103
Lines: 28

On Mon, Mar 06, 2006 at 01:53:44PM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> > 	rmmod your_turd </sys/spew/from/your_turd
> > and there you go.  rmmod can _NOT_ wait for sysfs references to go away.
> 
> To be fair, the only part of the kernel that supports the above process,
> is the network stack.  And they implemented a special kind of lock to
> handle just this kind of thing.
> 
> That is not something that I want the rest of the kernel to have to use.
> If your code blocks when doing the above thing, that's fine with me.

One word: fail.  With -EBUSY.
 
> Note, you better have the module owner reference right for the above to
> not oops the kernel, deadlock is fine.

Never is.

> There is no rule that we _have_
> to allow rmmod to always succeed.

Quite so, which means we can have it fail saying that module removal has
failed.  Deadlock is not the same thing.
-
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/